Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

A great variety of conservative and surgical procedures to correct vaginal vault prolapse have been reported. The aim of this study was to describe practice pattern variation—the difference in care that cannot be explained by the underlying medical condition—among Dutch gynecologists regarding treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.

Methods

A clinical practice survey was conducted from March to April 2017. The questionnaire was developed to evaluate treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. All members of the Dutch Society for Urogynaecology were invited to participate in a web-based survey.

Results

One hundred four Dutch gynecologists with special interest in urogynecology responded to the survey (response rate, 44%). As first-choice therapy for vaginal vault prolapse, 78% of the respondents chose pessary treatment, whereas sacrospinous fixation was the second most common therapy choice according to 64% of the respondents. Preferences on how to approach vaginal vault prolapse surgically are conflicting. Overall, the most performed surgery for vaginal vault prolapse is sacrospinous fixation, followed by laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Conclusions

Gynecologists in The Netherlands manage vaginal vault prolapse very differently. No standardized method could be determined for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands, and we observed practice pattern variations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ASC:

Abdominal sacrocolpopexy

IUGA:

International Urogynaecology Association

LSC:

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy

NTR:

Dutch Trial Register

POP:

Pelvic organ prolapse

PPV:

Practice pattern variation

SPSS:

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SSF:

Sacrospinous fixation

RSC:

Robotic sacrocolpopexy

VVP:

Vaginal vault prolapse

References

  1. Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, Geiss I, Riss P. An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(3):299–302.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lykke R, Blaakaer J, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery among Danish women hysterectomized for benign conditions: age at hysterectomy, age at subsequent POP operation, and risk of POP after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(4):527–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Central Bureau for Statistics. Hospital procedures in the Netherlands; hysterectomy 1995–2010. 2014, February 5. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl.

  4. Dällenbach P, Kaelin-Gambirasio I, Jacob S, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M. Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse repair after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1623–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, Carabaneanu A, Coccia EM, Mecacci F, et al. True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. Reprod Med. 1999;44(8):679–84.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in US women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1278–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jia. Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse, 2010. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(11):1413–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Panman CM, Wiegersma M, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Lisman-van Leeuwen Y, Vermeulen KM, et al. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment compared with pelvic floor muscle training in older women with pelvic organ prolapse: 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial in primary care. Menopause. 2016;23(12):1307–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lamers BHC, Broekman BMW, Milani AL. Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and health-related quality of life: a review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(6):637–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Uzoma A, Farag KA. Vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2009;2009:275621.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Klauschie JL, Cornella JL. Surgical treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: a historic summary and review of outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(1):10–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Davila GW, Ghoniem GM, Kapoor DS, Contreras-Ortiz O. Pelvic floor dysfunction management practice patterns: a survey of members of the international urogynecological association. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2002;13(5):319–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:1–161.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Coolen AWM, Bui BN, Dietz V, Wang R, van Montfoort APA, Mol BWJ, et al. The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(12):1767–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD012376.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Fernando RJ, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Shah SM, Jones PW. Effect of vaginal pessaries on symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(1):93–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cundiff GW, Amundsen CL, Bent AE, Coates KW, Schaffer JI, Strohbehn K, et al. The PESSRI study: symptom relief outcomes of a randomized crossover trial of the ring and Gellhorn pessaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(4):405.e1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:CD004014.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, et al. Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2008;115(11):1350–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lensen EJ, Withagen MI, Stoutjesdijk JA, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME. The use of synthetic mesh in vaginal prolapse surgery: a survey of Dutch urogynaecologists. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;162(1):113–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Argirović R. Posthysterectomy vault prolapse of vaginal walls: choice of operating procedure. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2012;140(9-10):666–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(1):20–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dietz V, de Jong J, Huisman M, Schraffordt Koops S, Heintz P, van der Vaart H. The effectiveness of the sacrospinous hysteropexy for the primary treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(11):1271–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Svabik K, Martan A, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Hubka P. Comparison of vaginal mesh repair with sacrospinous vaginal colpopexy in the management of vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy in patients with levator ani avulsion: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):365–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(5):885–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Claerhout F, Verguts J, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J. Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:1153–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Freeman RM, Pantazis K, Thomson A, Frappell J, Bombieri L, Moran P, et al. A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(4):301.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Coolen AWM, van Oudheusden AMJ, Mol BWJ, van Eijndhoven HWF, Roovers JWR, Bongers MY. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(10):1469–79.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Coolen AL, van Oudheusden AM, van Eijndhoven HW, van der Heijden TP, Stokmans RA, Mol BW, et al. A comparison of complications between open abdominal sacrocolpopexy and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:528636.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Dutch Society for Urogynaecology for sending our survey to the gynecologists and to all who contributed to this paper by responding to our questionnaire.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Máxima Medical Centre, De Run 4600, 5500 MB, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

    Carolien K. M. Vermeulen, Anne Lotte W. M. Coolen & Marlies Y. Bongers

  2. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Grow, Research School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Minderbroedersberg 4-6, 6211 LK, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Anne Lotte W. M. Coolen & Marlies Y. Bongers

  3. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Maastricht Academic Hospital, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Wilbert A. Spaans

  4. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Jan Paul W. R. Roovers

Authors
  1. Carolien K. M. Vermeulen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anne Lotte W. M. Coolen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wilbert A. Spaans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Paul W. R. Roovers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marlies Y. Bongers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carolien K. M. Vermeulen.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vermeulen, C.K.M., Coolen, A.L.W.M., Spaans, W.A. et al. Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey. Int Urogynecol J 30, 581–587 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3832-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3832-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation