Purchase one-time access:Academic and Personal
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
- Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery.Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1201-1206
- Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1096-1100
- Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89: 501-506
- Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial.JAMA. 2014; 311: 1023-1034
- 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: 1554-1565
- FDA takes action to protect women’s health, orders manufacturers of surgical mesh intended for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse to stop selling all devices.(Available at:)https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-action-protect-womens-health-orders-manufacturers-surgical-mesh-intended-transvaginalDate: 2019Date accessed: January 14, 2020
- Pelvic Organ prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) - a new era in pelvic prolapse staging.J Med Life. 2011; 4: 75-81
- Evidence-based physical therapy for the pelvic floor: bridging science and clinical practice.Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, Scotland2015
- Effect of vaginal mesh hysteropexy vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: a randomized clinical trial.JAMA. 2019; 322: 1054-1065
- Methods for the defining mechanisms of anterior vaginal wall descent (DEMAND) study.Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32: 809-818
- 3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network.Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 30: 1323-1341
- Inter-observer variability of vaginal wall segmentation from MRI: a statistical shape analysis approach.in: ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition Houston, TX. 2015
- Vaginal support as determined by levator ani defect status 6 weeks after primary surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2011; 114: 141-144
- Anterior vaginal wall length and degree of anterior compartment prolapse seen on dynamic MRI.Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008; 19: 137-142
- Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse.Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108: 324-332
- MRI diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse compared with clinical examination.Acad Radiol. 2011; 18: 1245-1251
- Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging to quantify pelvic organ prolapse: reliability of assessment and correlation with clinical findings and pelvic floor symptoms.Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23: 1547-1554
- Levator plate angle in women with pelvic organ prolapse compared to women with normal support using dynamic MR imaging.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 1427-1433
- Genital hiatus size is associated with and predictive of apical vaginal support loss.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214: 718.e1-718.e8
- Comparison of vaginal axis in women who have undergone hysterectomy versus women with an intact uterus.Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019; 25: 313-317
- Sacrospinous ligament fixation for eversion of the vagina.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988; 158: 872-881
- Preoperative and postoperative analysis of site-specific pelvic support defects in 81 women treated with sacrospinous ligament suspension and pelvic reconstruction.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166 (discussion 1768–71): 1764-1768
- Vaginal axis after abdominal sacrocolpopexy versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation-a randomized trial.Neurourol Urodyn. 2019; 38: 1142-1151
- Vaginal axis on MRI after unilateral and bilateral sacral hysteropexy: a controlled study.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 38: 115-120
- Lowest colpopexy sacral fixation point alters vaginal axis and cul-de-sac depth.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 208: 488.e1-488.e6
- The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 194: 1438-1443
- The length of anterior vaginal wall exposed to external pressure on maximal straining MRI: relationship to urogenital hiatus diameter, and apical and bladder location.Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25: 1349-1356
- Comparison of levator ani muscle defects and function in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse.Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109: 295-302
S.T.B. and P.A.M. contributed equally to this work.
A.S. and M.G.G. had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
All of the authors reported receiving funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women’s Health ( ORWH ) and that the Boston Scientific Corporation provided partial support through a research grant to the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (PFDN) Data Coordinating Center, RTI International .
P.A.M. reported serving as a consultant to Hologic, Inc and receiving research support from the NICHD.
S.T.A. reported receiving research support from the NICHD.
M.E.L. reported receiving personal fees from the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine as deputy editor for the Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine and book royalties from Elsevier and Oxford Publishers.
A.C.W. reported receiving personal fees as an assistant editor for the Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey and consultant to UroCure and research support from the NICHD.
C.E.F. reported receiving personal fees from Coloplast Corp; Boston Scientific Corporation; Medtronic USA, Inc; and Aesculap Inc.
C.W.N. reported receiving royalties for UpToDate.
H.E.R. reported receiving personal fees from the International Urogynecological Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists as an editor for the International Urogynecology Journal and Obstetrics and Gynecology Journal, respectively, and royalties from UpToDate. H.E.R. also reported receiving research support from Bluewind, Data and Safety Monitoring Board, Renovia, Allergan, the NICHD, and the National Institute of Aging. H.E.R. serves as a board member for the Worldwide Fistula Fund and American Urogynecologic Society.
C.R.R. reported receiving research support from Solace Therapeutics, Pelvalon, Foundation for Female Health Awareness, and the NICHD.
Y.M.K. reported receiving funding from Cook Myosite and research support from the NICHD.
The authors report no conflict of interest.
This study was conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD-sponsored PFDN (grant number U10 HD054214, U10 HD041267, U10 HD041261, U10 HD069013, U10 HD069025, U10 HD069010, U10 HD069006, U10 HD054215, and U01 HD069031) and the NIH ORWH. Partial support for this study was supplied by Boston Scientific Corporation through a research grant to the PFDN Data Coordinating Center, RTI International. Research training support was provided by the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) (5T32EB003392-13) and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship Program. The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or the Ford Foundation.
The NICHD project scientist (D.M.) for the PFDN at the time of this study had a role in the development of the protocol and management of the study and preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript. The funding of the study was managed by other NIH employees. The NIBIB and Ford Foundation had a role in providing research training support. Boston Scientific Corporation had no role in any aspects of this study.
Cite this article as: Bowen ST, Moalli PA, Abramowitch SD, et al. Defining mechanisms of recurrence following apical prolapse repair based on imaging criteria. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;225:506.e1-28.