Apical Suspension During Prolapse Repair: When Is It indicated?
Purpose of Review
The criteria for choosing to perform an apical suspension at the time of prolapse repair are not always clear. The aim of this article is to review the evidence regarding the role of apical suspension at the time of prolapse repair.
Several studies have shown that defects in apical vaginal support contribute significantly to both anterior and posterior prolapse. Furthermore, there is evidence that apical suspension at the time of anterior and, to a lesser extent, posterior prolapse repair may decrease the risk of recurrence requiring treatment in the future. Despite this evidence, concomitant apical suspension at the time of surgery for anterior or posterior prolapse remains low. This is likely due to both a lack of recognition of pre-existing apical prolapse and the absence of standard guidelines for apical suspension.
Apical suspensions commonly include sacrocolpopexy, uterosacral ligament suspension, and sacrospinous ligament fixation. Published clinical trials suggest that sacrocolpopexy is superior to transvaginal native tissue repairs in terms of recurrence. However, this may not be true for all populations. Uterine-sparing techniques are being performed more frequently, and research in this area is ongoing. These procedures appear safe, but there is conflicting evidence regarding success rates and recurrent prolapse.
The integrity of the vaginal apex is likely a critical component to providing vaginal support at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery for prolapse. Several safe and effective procedures exist to correct loss of apical support. Additionally, new data are emerging comparing safety and efficacy rates of these procedures.
KeywordsApical suspension Uterosacral ligament Sacrospinous ligament Sacrocolpopexy Recurrent prolapse Uterovaginal prolapse
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Catherine O. Hudson and Gina M. Northington declare no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
- 4.• 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012376. This is an updated Cochrane review analyzing outcomes after apical repair from randomized controlled trials. PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.• Lowder J, Park A, Ellison R, et al. The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):152–7. The contribution of apical support to anterior and posterior prolapse is evaluated in this study. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000297309.25091.a0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, Hsu Y, DeLancey JO. Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(2):324–32. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000227786.69257.a8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse [published erratum appears in JAMA 2013;310:1076]. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.4919.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 16.Ross WT, Meister MR, Shepherd JP, Olsen MA, Lowder JL. Utilization of apical vaginal support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy performed for benign conditions: a national estimate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(4):436.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.• Lowenstein E, Moller LA, Laigaard J, Gimbel H. Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse: a Danish cohort study with 15–20 years’ follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;29(1):119–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3395-3. This study publishes the reoperation rate for this cohort and shows that age is a significant factor contributing to risk of reoperation. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Weidner AC, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Pelvic Floor Disorders Network [published erratum appears in JAMA 2015;313:2287]. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1023–34. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.1719.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 28.• Sanses TVD, Hanley JM, Zhang P, Richter HE, Gambert SR, Saigal CS. Readmission and prolapse recurrence after abdominal and vaginal apical suspensions in older women. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(6):1369–77. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001717. This study compares surgical outcomes in a longitudinal Medicare database in women older than 65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. https://pfdnetwork.azurewebsites.net. Accessed 8 August 2017.
- 33.Alperin M, Weinstein M, Kivnick S, Duong TH, Menefee S. A randomized trial of prophylactic uterosacral ligament suspension at the time of hysterectomy for Prevention of Vaginal Vault Prolapse (PULS): design and methods. Contem Clin Trials. 2013;35(2):8–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2013.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar