Prolapse recurrence following sacrocolpopexy vs uterosacral ligament suspension: a comparison stratified by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage

Published:September 23, 2017DOI:


      Insufficient evidence evaluates which pelvic organ prolapse surgery is best suited to an individual woman based on the stage of her prolapse.


      We sought to compare prolapse recurrence rates following sacrocolpopexy and uterosacral ligament suspension after stratifying by preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage.

      Study Design

      We compared all women who underwent minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy or vaginal or minimally invasive uterosacral ligament suspension from 2009 through 2015 at a large academic center. All women with preoperative and postoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification data were included. Patients were grouped by preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage for analysis. Recurrence rates following sacrocolpopexy and uterosacral ligament suspension were compared for patients presenting with stage II, III, and IV prolapse, adjusting for potential confounders in regression models. Prolapse recurrence was defined as any retreatment for prolapse or any Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point beyond the hymen.


      Of 756 women, 633 underwent sacrocolpopexy (83.7%) and 123 (16.3%) underwent uterosacral ligament suspension. In all, 189 (25%) had preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage II prolapse, 527 (69.7%) stage III, and 40 (5.3%) stage IV. Patients were predominantly Caucasian (97.3%) with mean age 59.8 ± 9.5 years. Compared to uterosacral ligament suspension patients, more sacrocolpopexy patients had undergone prior prolapse repair (20.9% vs 5.7%, P < .001) and fewer had known diabetes mellitus (7.9% vs 13.8%, P = .034). Characteristics of the groups were otherwise similar. Median follow-up was 41.0 (interquartile range 13.0-88.8) weeks. Stage II prolapse patients had similar recurrence rates following sacrocolpopexy or uterosacral ligament suspension (6.0% vs 5.0, P = 1.00). However, stage III prolapse patients were more likely to experience recurrence following uterosacral ligament suspension (25.7% vs 7.8%, P < .001). This difference persisted after controlling for age, body mass index, smoking, diabetes, and prior prolapse repair (odds ratio, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.2–8.2). There was no discernable difference in recurrence rates for women with stage IV prolapse, although sample size was limited.


      Sacrocolpopexy resulted in a lower prolapse recurrence rate than uterosacral ligament suspension for stage III prolapse. However, there was no difference in recurrence rate among women with preoperative stage II prolapse, suggesting mesh augmentation may not be indicated for these patients. Larger prospective trials are necessary for confirmation.

      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 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


        • Jones K.A.
        • Shepherd J.P.
        • Oliphant S.S.
        • Wang L.
        • Bunker C.H.
        • Lowder J.L.
        Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979-2006.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202: 501.e1-501.e7
        • Boyles S.H.
        • Weber A.M.
        • Meyn L.
        Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188: 108-115
        • Wu J.M.
        • Matthews C.A.
        • Conover M.M.
        • Pate V.
        • Jonsson Funk M.
        Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1201-1206
        • Diwadkar G.B.
        • Barber M.D.
        • Feiner B.
        • Maher C.
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: a systematic review.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 367-373
        • Siddiqui N.Y.
        • Grimes C.L.
        • Casiano E.R.
        • et al.
        Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 44-55
        • 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
        • Aslam M.F.
        • Osmundsen B.
        • Edwards S.R.
        • Matthews C.
        • Gregory W.T.
        Preoperative prolapse stage as predictor of failure of sacrocolpopexy.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016; 22: 156-160
        • Vergeldt T.F.
        • Weemhoff M.
        • IntHout J.
        • Kluivers K.B.
        Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 1559-1573
        • 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.W.
        • Fine P.
        • et al.
        Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 1557-1566
        • 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
        • 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
        • Lo T.S.
        • Wang A.C.
        Abdominal colposacropexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension for severe uterovaginal prolapse: a comparison.
        J Gynecol Surg. 1998; 14: 59-64
        • Roovers J.P.W.R.
        • van der Vaart C.H.
        • van der Bom J.G.
        • van Leeuwen J.H.S.
        • 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
        • 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