Advertisement

Apical Suspension During Prolapse Repair: When Is It indicated?

  • Catherine O. Hudson
  • Gina M. Northington
Urogynecology (S Pulliam and N Kohli, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Urogynecology

Abstract

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.

Recent Findings

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.

Summary

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.

Keywords

Apical suspension Uterosacral ligament Sacrospinous ligament Sacrocolpopexy Recurrent prolapse Uterovaginal prolapse 

Notes

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.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(6):1717–24; discussion 1724-8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(92)91562-O.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ghetti C, Gregory WT, Edwards SR, Otto LN, Clark AL. Pelvic organ descent and symptoms of pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(1):53–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gutman RE, Ford DE, Quiroz LH, Shippey SH, Handa VL. Is there a pelvic organ prolapse threshold that predicts pelvic floor symptoms? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):683.e1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.07.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 5.
    ACOG. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 176: pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(4):763–5.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeLancey JO. Fascial and muscular abnormalities in women with urethral hypermobility and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(1):93–8.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.125733.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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. 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
  9. 9.
    Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L. Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1837–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.065.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK, DeLancey JO. The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1438–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.057.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Elliott CS, Yeh J, Comiter CV, Chen B, Sokol ER. The predictive value of a cystocele for concomitant vaginal apical prolapse. J Urol. 2013 Jan;189(1):200–3.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.177.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Luo J, Chen L, Fenner DE, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO. A multi-compartment 3-D finite element model of rectocele and its interaction with cystocele. J. Biomech. 2015;48(9):1580–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2015.02.041.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 14.
    Hudson CO, Karp DR, Loucks TL, Northington GM. Apical suspension at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse: a comparative analysis of 2001 and 2011. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(6):343–7.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000199.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rhoads KF, Sokol ER. Variation in the quality of surgical care for uterovaginal prolapse. Med Care. 2011;49(1):46–51.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181f37fed.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 17.
    Northington GM, Hudson CO, Karp DR, Huber SA. Concomitant apical suspensory procedures in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse in the United States in 2011. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):613–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2894-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alas AN, Bresee C, Eilber K, Toubi K, Rashid R, Roth C, et al. Measuring the quality of care provided to women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(4):471–e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Altman D, Falconer C, Cnattingius S, Granath F. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery following hysterectomy on benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):572–e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Blandon BE, Bharucha AE, Melton LJ III, et al. Incidence of pelvic floor repair after hysterectomy: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):664.e1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Committee Opinion. No 701: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(6):e155–9.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Meister MR, Sutcliffe S, Lowder JL. Definitions of apical vaginal support loss: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(3):232–e1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 24.
    Vergeld TFM, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1559–73.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2695-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cruikshank SH, Kovac SR. Randomized comparison of three surgical methods used at the time of vaginal hysterectomy to prevent posterior enterocele. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(4):859–65.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70656-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. 27.
    Anand M, Weaver AL, Fruth KM, Trabuco EC, Gebhart JB. Symptom relief and retreatment after vaginal, open or robotic surgery for apical prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(5):297–309.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000389.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 29.
    Madsen AM, Raker C, Sung VW. Trends in hysteropexy and apical support for uterovaginal prolapse in the United States from 2002 to 2012. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23(6):365–71.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 31.
    Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Koops SE. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):209–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1014-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. https://pfdnetwork.azurewebsites.net. Accessed 8 August 2017.
  33. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyThe Ohio State University College of MedicineColumbusUSA
  2. 2.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsEmory University School of Medicine and The Emory ClinicAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations