Skip to main content
Log in

Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair

  • Clinical Opinion
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The lifetime risk of women for undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is estimated to be 11–19%, and 30% of these women will require subsequent reoperation over time. Following hysterectomy, 3.6 per 1,000 person-years need surgical correction of prolapse, and in two-thirds of these cases multi-compartment prolapse is present. In the last decades, vaginally synthetic meshes were widely used in pelvic reconstructive surgery. However, after the decision of the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 to stop selling all surgical mesh devices for transvaginal prolapse repair, native tissue (NT) vaginal repair seems to regain an important role in pelvic reconstructive surgery. In the literature, various surgical techniques have been described for apical repair, but the best surgical approach is still to be proven. This paper analyzes the current evidence from recent literature on NT vaginal vault prolapse (VVP) repair, with special focus on the safety and efficacy of the various vaginal techniques.

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

Access this article

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

References

  1. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Female Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Milsom I, Altman D, Cartwright R, et al. (2017) Epidemiology of urinary incontinence (UI) and other lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and anal (AI) incontinence. In: Abrams C, Khoury W (eds) 6th International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication.

  3. Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1783–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Betschart C, Cervigni M, Contreras Ortiz O, et al. Management of apical compartment prolapse (uterine and vault prolapse): a FIGO Working Group Report. Neurourol Urodynamics. 2017;36:507–13.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Meyer I, Whitworth RE, Lukacz ES, et al. (2020) Outcomes of native tissue transvaginal apical approaches in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04271-y

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):13–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1160–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Robinson D, Thiagamoorthy G, Cardozo L. Post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Maturitas. 2018;107:39–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Paz-Levy D, Yohay D, Neymeyer J, et al. Native tissue repair for central compartment prolapse: a narrative review. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:181–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1815–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Maher C, Baessler K, Barber MD, et al. (2017) Pelvic organ prolapse surgery. In: Abrams C, Khoury W (eds) 6th International Consultation on Incontinence. Health Publication.

  12. 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(6):1278–83.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Food and Drug Administration (2008) FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Silver Spring (MD): FDA. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htmRetrieved 7 Jan 2012

  14. Food and Drug Administration (2011) FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Silver Spring (MD): FDA. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/. Retrieved 7 Jan 2012

  15. ACOG Committee Opinion No.513. Vaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1459–64.

    Google Scholar 

  16. AUGS (American Urogynecological Society). Position statement on restriction of surgical options for pelvic floor disorders. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):199–201.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Martín-Martínez A, Müller-Arteaga C, Blasco-Hernández P, et al. (2020) Position of Ibero-American Society of Neurourology and UroGynecology (SINUG) on the use of vaginal meshes in pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 39(3):1020–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Palmerola R, Rosenblum N. (2019) Prolapse repair using non-synthetic material: what is the current standard? Curr Urol Rep 20:70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-019-0939-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Clemons JL, Weinstein M, Guess MK, et al. Impact of the 2011 FDA transvaginal mesh safety update on AUGS members’ use of synthetic mesh and biologic grafts in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):191–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Husby KR, Lose G, Klarskov N. Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark. Int Urogynecol J 2019; https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3852-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wallace SL, Syan R, Sokol ER. Surgery for apical vaginal prolapse after hysterectomy transvaginal mesh-based repair. Urol Clin N Am. 2019;46:103–11.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. (2017) Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 10(10):CD012376.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Siddiqui NY, Grimes CL, Casiano ER, Abed HT, Jeppson PC, Olivera CK, et al. Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125:44–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hemming C, Constable L, Goulao B, et al. Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs. Health Technol Assess. 2020;24(13):1–220.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Joint Writing Group of the American Urogynecologic Society and the International Urogynecological Association. Joint report on terminology for surgical procedures to treat pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(3):429–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04236-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jeon MJ. Surgical decision making for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based approach. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2019;62(5):307–12.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Declas E, Giraudet G, Delplanque S, et al. How we perform a posterior sacrospinous ligament fixation by the vaginal route. Int Urogynecol J. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04149-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, et al. Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the OPTIMAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(15):1554–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Aigmueller T, Riss P, Dungl A, et al. Long-term follow-up after vaginal sacrospinous fixation: patient satisfaction, anatomical results and quality of life. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(7):965.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Propst K, O'Sullivan DM, Steinberg AC. Randomized double-blind trial of short- versus long-acting analgesia at the sacrospinous ligament. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(1):123–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Beer M, Kuhn A. Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;119:144–55.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Campbell J, Pedroletti C, Ekhed L, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after sacrospinous fixation of vault prolapse with a suturing device: a retrospective national cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):821–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, et al. A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183(6):1365–73.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Margulies RU, Rogers MA, Morgan DM. Outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(2):124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Milani R, Frigerio M, Cola A, et al. Outcomes of transvaginal high uterosacral ligaments suspension: over 500-patient single-center study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24:203–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Milani R, Manodoro S, Cola A, et al. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy versus hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04206-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Gustilo-Ashby AM, Jelovsek E, Barber MD, et al. The incidence of ureteral obstruction and the value of intraoperative cystoscopy during vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1478–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kowalski JT, Genadry R, Ten Eyck P, et al. A randomized controlled trial of permanent vs absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension. Int Urogynecol J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04244-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Houlihan S, Kim-Fine S, Birch C, et al. Uterosacral vault suspension (USLS) at the time of hysterectomy: laparoscopic versus vaginal approach. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):611–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Silva WA, Pauls RN, Segal JL, et al. Uterosacral ligament vault suspension: five-year outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108:255–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Shull BL, Capen CV, Riggs MW, et al. Bilateral attachment of the vaginal cuff to iliococcygeus fascia: an effective method of cuff suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168(6 Pt 1):1669–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Maher CF, Murray CJ, Carey MP, et al. Iliococcygeus or sacrospinous fixation for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(1):40–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Serati M, Braga A, Bogani G, et al. Iliococcygeus fixation for the treatment of apical vaginal prolapse: efficacy and safety at 5 years of follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(7):1007–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Milani R, Cesana MC, Spelzini F, et al. Iliococcygeus fixation or abdominal sacral colpopexy for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:279–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Meeks GR, Washburne JF, McGehee RP, et al. Repair of vaginal vault prolapse by suspension of the vagina to iliococcygeus (prespinous) fascia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;171(6):1444–52; discussion 1452–1454.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Webb MJ, Aronson MP, Ferguson LK, et al. Posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: primary repair in 693 patients. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92(2):281–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Colombo M, Milani R. Sacrospinous ligament fixation and modified McCall culdoplasty during vaginal hysterectomy for advanced uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(1):13–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Spelzini F, Frigerio M, Manodoro S, et al. Modified McCall culdoplasty versus Shull suspension in pelvic prolapse primary repair: a retrospective study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):65–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Niblock K, Bailie E, McCracken GK, et al. Vaginal McCall culdoplasty versus laparoscopic uterosacral plication to prophylactically address vaginal vault prolapse. Gynaecol Surg. 2017;14(1):3.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Crisp CC, Book NM, Cunkelman JA, et al. Body image, regret, and satisfaction 24 weeks after colpocleisis: a multicenter study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(3):132–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sung VW, Weitzen S, Sokol ER, et al. Effect of patient age on increasing morbidity and mortality following urogynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194:1411–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Mueller MG, Ellimootil C, Abernethy MG, et al. Colpocleisis: a safe, minimally invasive option for pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(1):30–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. FitzGerald MP, Richter HE, Siddique S, et al. Colpocleisis: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:261–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Dessie SG, Shapiro A, Haviland MJ, et al. Obliterative versus reconstructive prolapse repair for women older than 70: is there an optimal approach? Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23:23–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Vij M, Bombiri L, Dua A, et al. Long-term follow-up after colpocleisis: regret, bowel, and bladder function. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(6):811–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Petcharopas A, Wongtra-Ngan S, Chinthakanan O. Quality of life following vaginal reconstructive versus obliterative surgery for treating advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(8):1141–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Anglim B, O’Sullivan O, O’Reilly B. How do patients and surgeons decide on uterine preservation or hysterectomy in apical prolapse? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:1075–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Andrea Braga, Consultant: protocol/project development, manuscript writing; Maurizio Serati, Associate Professor: critical revision; Stefano Salvatore, Associate Professor: critical revision; Marco Torella, Consultant: critical revision; Roberto Pasqualetti, Consultant: critical revision; Andrea Papadia, Full Professor: critical revision; Giorgio Caccia, Chief: critical revision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Braga.

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

Braga, A., Serati, M., Salvatore, S. et al. Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J 31, 2003–2010 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04368-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04368-4

Keywords

Navigation