Advertisement

Definitions of apical vaginal support loss: a systematic review

Published:September 15, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.078

      Objective

      We sought to identify and summarize definitions of apical support loss utilized for inclusion, success, and failure in surgical trials for treatment of apical vaginal prolapse.

      Background

      Pelvic organ prolapse is a common condition affecting more than 3 million women in the US, and the prevalence is increasing. Prolapse may occur in the anterior compartment, posterior compartment or at the apex. Apical support is considered paramount to overall female pelvic organ support, yet apical support loss is often underrecognized and there are no guidelines for when an apical support procedure should be performed or incorporated into a procedure designed to address prolapse.

      Study Design

      A systematic literature search was performed in 8 search engines: PubMed 1946-, Embase 1947-, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Review Effects, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, Proquest Dissertations and Theses, and FirstSearch Proceedings, using key words for apical pelvic organ prolapse and apical suspension procedures through April 2016. Searches were limited to human beings using human filters and articles published in English. Study authors (M.R.L.M., J.L.L.) independently reviewed publications for inclusion based on predefined variables. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they satisfied any of the following criteria: (1) apical support loss was an inclusion criterion in the original study, (2) apical support loss was a surgical indication, or (3) an apical support procedure was performed as part of the primary surgery.

      Results

      A total of 4469 publications were identified. After review, 35 articles were included in the analysis. Prolapse-related inclusion criteria were: (1) apical prolapse (n = 20, 57.1%); (2) overall prolapse (n = 8, 22.8%); or (3) both (n = 6, 17.1%). Definitions of apical prolapse (relative to the hymen) included: (1) apical prolapse >–1 cm (n = 13, 50.0%); (2) apical prolapse >+1 cm (n = 7, 26.9%); (3) apical prolapse >50% of total vaginal length (–[total vaginal length/2]) (n = 4, 15.4%); and (4) cervix/apex >0 cm (n = 2, 7.7%). Sixteen of the 35 studies (45.7%) required the presence of symptoms for inclusion. A measurement of the apical compartment (relative to the hymen) was used as a measure of surgical success or failure in 17 (48.6%) studies. Definitions for surgical success included: (1) prolapse stage >2 in each compartment (n = 5, 29.4%); (2) prolapse >–[total vaginal length/2] (n = 2, 11.8%); (3) apical support >–[total vaginal length/3] (n = 1, 5.9%); (4) absence of prolapse beyond the hymen (n = 1, 5.9%); and (5) point C at ≥–5 cm (n = 2, 11.8%). Surgical failure was defined as: (1) apical prolapse ≥0 cm (n = 2, 11.8%); (2) apical prolapse ≥–1 cm (n = 2, 11.8%); (3) apical prolapse >–[total vaginal length/2] (n = 3, 17.6%); and (4) recurrent apical prolapse surgery (n = 1, 5.9%). Ten (28.6%) of the 35 studies also included symptomatic outcomes in the definition of success or failure.

      Conclusion

      Among randomized, controlled surgical trials designed to address apical vaginal support loss, definitions of clinically significant apical prolapse for study inclusion and surgical success or failure are either highly variable or absent. These findings provide limited evidence of consensus and little insight into current expert opinion.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Wu J.M.
        • Hundley A.F.
        • Fulton R.G.
        • Myers E.R.
        Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in US women.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 1278-1283
        • Olsen A.L.
        • Smith V.J.
        • Bergstrom J.O.
        Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89: 501-506
        • Fialkow M.F.
        • Newton K.M.
        • Lentz G.M.
        • Weiss N.S.
        Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2008; 19: 437-440
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Maher C.
        • Barber M.D.
        Pelvic organ prolapse.
        Lancet. 2007; 369: 1027-1038
        • Hendrix S.L.
        • Clark A.
        • Nygaard I.
        • Aragaki A.
        • Barnabei V.
        • McTiernan A.
        Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women's Health Initiative: gravidity and gravidity.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 1160-1166
        • Swift S.
        • Woodman P.
        • O'Boyle A.
        • et al.
        Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 795-806
        • Swift S.E.
        The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 183: 277-285
        • Swift S.E.
        • Tate S.B.
        • Nicholas J.
        Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189: 372-379
        • Gutman R.E.
        • Ford D.E.
        • Quiroz L.H.
        • Shippey S.H.
        • Handa V.L.
        Is there a pelvic organ prolapse threshold that predicts pelvic floor symptoms?.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 1-12
        • Ghetti C.
        • Gregory T.
        • Edwards R.
        • Otto L.N.
        • Clark A.L.
        Pelvic organ descent and symptoms of pelvic floor disorders.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: 53-57
        • Bump R.C.
        • Mattiasson A.
        • Bo K.
        • et al.
        The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 10-17
        • Hall A.F.
        • Theofrastous J.P.
        • Cundiff G.W.
        • et al.
        Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, and American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 1467-1470
        • Baden W.F.
        • Walker T.A.
        Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1972; 15: 1048-1054
        • Brubaker L.
        • Glazner G.
        • Jacquetin B.
        • et al.
        Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
        ICS Prolapse Committee. 2008; (Available at) (Accessed December 1, 2016): 1273-1320
        • Elliott C.S.
        • Yeh J.
        • Comiter C.V.
        • Chen B.
        • Sokol E.R.
        The predictive value of a cystocele for concomitant vaginal apical prolapse.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: 200-203
        • Kantartzis K.L.
        • Turner L.C.
        • Shephard J.P.
        • Wang L.
        • Winger D.G.
        • Lowder J.L.
        Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 207-212
        • Barber M.D.
        • Maher C.
        Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24: 1783-1790
        • Lowder J.L.
        • Park A.J.
        • Ellison R.
        • et al.
        The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 152-157
        • Rooney K.
        • Kenton K.
        • Mueller E.R.
        • FitzGerald M.P.
        • Brubaker L.
        Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195: 1837-1840
        • Hsu Y.
        • Chen L.
        • Summers A.
        • Aston-Miller J.A.
        • DeLancey J.O.L.
        Anterior vaginal wall length and degree of anterior compartment prolapse seen on dynamic MRI.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2008; 19: 137-142
        • Summers A.
        • Winkel L.A.
        • Hussain H.K.
        • DeLancey J.O.L.
        The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 1438-1442
        • Eilber K.S.
        • Alperin M.
        • Khan A.
        • et al.
        Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries. The role of apical support.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 981-987
        • Moghimi K.
        • Valbo A.
        Genital prolapse: a follow-up study assessing subjective and objective results five years or more after surgical intervention.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005; 120: 198-201
      1. Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed December 1, 2016.

        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1-6
        • Qatawneh A.
        • Al-Kazaleh F.
        • Saleh S.
        • et al.
        Transvaginal cystocele repair using tension-free polypropylene mesh at the time of sacrospinous colpopexy for advanced uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized study.
        Gynecol Surg. 2013; 10: 79-85
        • Rane A.
        • Lim Y.N.
        • Withey G.
        • Muller R.
        Magnetic resonance imaging findings following three different vaginal vault prolapse repair procedures: a randomized study.
        Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004; 44: 135-139
        • van der Steen A.
        • van der Ploeg M.
        • Dijkgraaf M.G.W.
        • van der Vaart H.
        • Roovers J.W.R.
        Protocol for the CUPIDO trials; multicenter randomized controlled trials to assess the value of combining prolapse surgery and incontinence surgery in patients with genital prolapse and evident stress incontinence (CUPIDO I) and in patients with genital prolapse and occult stress incontinence (CUPIDO II).
        BMC Womens Health. 2010; 10: 16
        • Maher C.F.
        • Qatawneh A.M.
        • Dwyer P.L.
        • Carey M.P.
        • Cornish A.
        • Schluter P.J.
        Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190: 20-26
        • Maher C.F.
        • Feiner B.
        • DeCuyper E.M.
        • Nichlos C.J.
        • Hickey K.V.
        • O'Rourke P.
        Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 360.e1-360.e7
        • Freeman R.M.
        • Pantazis K.
        • Thomson A.
        • et al.
        A randomized controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24: 377-384
        • Costantini E.
        • Lazzeri M.
        • Bini V.
        • Del Zingaro M.
        • Zucchi A.
        • Porena M.
        Burch colposuspension does not provide any additional benefit to pelvic organ prolapse repair in patients with urinary incontinence: a randomized surgical trial.
        J Urol. 2008; 180: 1007-1012
        • Lopes E.D.
        • de Barros Moreira Lemos N.L.
        • da Silva Carramao S.
        • et al.
        Transvaginal polypropylene mesh versus sacrospinous ligament fixation for the treatment of uterine prolapse: 1-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 389-394
        • Natale F.
        • La Penna C.
        • Padoa A.
        • Agstini M.
        • Panei M.
        • Crevigni M.
        High levator myorraphy versus uterosacral ligament suspension for vaginal vault fixation: a prospective, randomized study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 515-522
        • Roovers J.P.W.R.
        • van der Vaart C.H.
        • van der Bom J.G.
        • Schagen van Leeuwen J.H.
        • Scholten P.C.
        • Heintz A.P.M.
        A randomized controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function.
        BJOG. 2004; 111: 50-56
        • Anger J.T.
        • Mueller E.R.
        • Tarnay C.
        • et al.
        Robotic compared with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 5-12
        • Noe K.G.
        • Spuntrup C.
        • Anapolski M.
        Laparoscopic pectopexy: a randomized comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpo-cervicopexy to the new laparoscopic pectopexy. Short-term postoperative results.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 287: 275-280
        • 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: 365-371
        • Alperin M.
        • Weinstein M.
        • Kivnick S.
        • Duong T.H.
        • 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.
        Contemp Clin Trials. 2013; 35: 8-12
        • Doganay M.
        • Aksakal O.
        Minimally invasive sacrospinous ligament suspension: perioperative morbidity and review of the literature.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 287: 1167-1172
        • Paraiso M.F.
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Frick A.
        • Chen C.C.G.
        • Barber M.D.
        Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118: 1005-1013
        • Halaska M.
        • Maxova K.
        • Sottner O.
        • et al.
        A multicenter, randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing sacrospinous fixation and transvaginal mesh in the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207: 301.e1-301.e7
        • Withagen M.I.
        • Milani A.L.
        • den Boon J.
        • Vervest H.A.
        • Vierhout M.E.
        Trocar-guided mesh compared with conventional vaginal repair in recurrent prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 117: 242-250
        • Culligan P.J.
        • Salamon C.
        • Priestley J.L.
        • Shariati A.
        Porcine dermis compared with polypropylene mesh for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 143-151
        • de Tayrac R.
        • Mathe M.L.
        • Bader G.
        • Deffieux X.
        • Fazel A.
        • Fernandez H.
        Infracoccygeal sacropexy or sacrospinous suspension for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008; 100: 154-159
        • Detollenaere R.J.
        • den Boon J.
        • Stekelenburg J.
        • et al.
        Treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a randomized multicenter trial comparing sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy (SAVE U trial).
        BMC Womens Health. 2011; 11: 4-12
        • Lo T.
        • Wang A.C.
        Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison.
        J Gynecol Surg. 1998; 14: 59-64
        • Dietz V.
        • van der Vaart C.H.
        • van der Graaf Y.
        • Heintz P.
        • Schraffordt Koops S.E.
        One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 209-216
        • Benson J.T.
        • Lucente V.
        • McClellan E.
        Vaginal versus abdominal reconstructive surgery for the treatment of pelvic support defects: a prospective randomized study with long-term outcome evaluation.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 1418-1421
        • Barber M.D.
        • Brubaker L.
        • Burgio K.L.
        • et al.
        Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial.
        JAMA. 2014; 311: 1023-1034
        • Brubaker L.
        • Cundiff G.
        • Fine P.
        Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 1557-1566
        • Iglesia C.B.
        • Sokol A.I.
        • Sokol E.R.
        • et al.
        Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 293-303
        • Campagna G.
        • Morciano A.
        • Rossitto C.
        • et al.
        A new approach to supracervical hysterectomy during laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized clinical trial.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2016; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23030
        • Costantini E.
        • Mearini L.
        • Lazzeri M.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial.
        J Urol. 2016; 196: 159-165
        • Detollenaere R.J.
        • den Boon J.
        • Stekelenburg J.
        • et al.
        Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial.
        BMJ. 2015; 351: h3717
        • El-agwany A.S.
        • Salem H.A.
        • Nagaty A.M.
        • Hanafy T.M.
        Comparative study between abdominal versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy.
        POG. 2015; 58: 341-349
        • Nager C.W.
        • Zyczynski H.
        • Rogers R.G.
        • et al.
        The design of a randomized trial of vaginal surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue vault suspension versus mesh hysteropexy suspension (the study of uterine prolapse procedures randomized trial).
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016; 22: 182-189
        • Noe K.G.
        • Schiermeier S.
        • Alkatout I.
        • Anapolski M.
        Laparoscopic pectopexy: a prospective, randomized, comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpocervicopexy with the new laparoscopic pectopexy-postoperative results and intermediate-term follow-up in a pilot study.
        J Endourol. 2015; 29: 210-215
        • Rahmanou P.
        • Price N.
        • Jackson S.R.
        Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 1687-1694
        • Rondini C.
        • Braun H.
        • Alvarez J.
        • et al.
        High uterosacral vault suspension vs Sacrocolpopexy for treating apical defects: a randomized controlled trial with twelve months follow-up.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 1131-1138
        • dos Reis Brandao da Silveira S.
        • Haddad J.M.
        • de Jarmy-Di Bella K.I.K.
        • et al.
        Multicenter, randomized trial comparing native vaginal tissue repair and synthetic mesh repair for genital prolapse surgical treatment.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 335-342
        • Tan-Kim J.
        • Nager C.W.
        • Grimes C.L.
        • et al.
        A randomized trial of vaginal mesh attachment techniques for minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 649-656
        • van IJsselmuiden M.N.
        • Coolen A.W.M.
        • Detollenaere R.J.
        • et al.
        Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (LAVA-trial, study protocol).
        BMC Womens Health. 2014; 14: 112-118
        • Shek K.L.
        • Dietz H.P.
        Assessment of pelvic organ prolapse: a review.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; ([Epub ahead of print])https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.15881
        • Dietz H.P.
        • Mann K.P.
        What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25: 451-455