Apical Suspension Repair for Vaginal Vault Prolapse-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Apical Suspension Repair for Vaginal Vault Prolapse

Published:2024-08-01 Issue:8 Volume:159 Page:845
ISSN:2168-6254
Container-title:JAMA Surgery
language:en
Short-container-title:JAMA Surg

Author:

Menefee Shawn A.¹,Richter Holly E.²,Myers Deborah³,Moalli Pamela⁴,Weidner Alison C.⁵,Harvie Heidi S.⁶,Rahn David D.⁷,Meriwether Kate V.⁸,Paraiso Marie Fidela R.⁹,Whitworth Ryan¹⁰,Mazloomdoost Donna¹¹,Thomas Sonia¹⁰, ,Tulikangas Paul¹²,Ihm Jenifer¹²,Perez Lea¹²,Kong Lan¹²,McClish Donna¹²,Rickey Leslie¹²,Shade David¹²,Tuteja Ashok¹²,Yount Susan¹²,Lavender Missy¹²,O'Dell Kate¹²,Gantz Marie¹²,McMillian Kimberly¹²,Sridhar Amaanti¹²,Nowak Kayla¹²,Swankie Taylor¹²,Shaffer Amanda¹²,Burson Katrina¹²,Koeller-Anna Kelly¹²,Carper Ben¹²,Honeycutt Emily¹²,Davis Tracey¹²,Pickett James¹²,Burdekin Kate¹²,Glass Kendra¹²,Brenizer Tucker¹²,Burd Andrew¹²,Barden Lindsey¹²,Wallace Dennis¹²,Sung Vivian¹²,Rardin Charles¹²,Wohlrab Kyle¹²,Korbly Nicole¹²,Carberry Cassandra¹²,Hampton Star¹²,Meers Ann¹²,Veera Sarashwathy¹²,Visco Anthony¹²,Siddiqui Nazema¹²,Amundsen Cindy¹²,Kawasaki Amie¹²,Bickhaus Jennifer¹²,Smith Katelynn¹²,Jelovsek Eric¹²,O'Shea Michele¹²,Yu Stephanie¹²,Huber Sherry¹²,Guerrero Magaly¹²,Green Paige¹²,Granger Summer¹²,Bruton Yasmeen¹²,Morehead Folayan¹²,Shaw Cassandra¹²,Byars Ellen¹²,Anderson Abigail¹²,Miller Michelle¹²,Barber Matthew¹²,Graham Annette¹²,Pung Ly¹²,Edington Maryori¹²,Ferrando Cecile¹²,Jelovsek John¹²,Walters Mark¹²,Jallad Karl¹²,Mackinnon Linda¹²,Zazueta Gisselle¹²,Ferrante Kimberly¹²,Dyer Keisha¹²,Diwadkar Gouri¹²,Doan Christine¹²,Hall Lynn¹²,Nguyen John¹²,Liao Christina¹²,Jakus-Waldman Sharon¹²,Zyczynski Halina¹²,Fairchild Pam¹²,Bradley Megan¹²,Ackenbom Mary¹²,Klump Beth¹²,Kunkle Lauren¹²,Rajkovich Margaret¹²,Gruss Judy¹²,Durst Rachel¹²,Baranski Lindsey¹²,Noel Jacqueline¹²,Mislanovich Karen¹²,Varner Edward¹²,Meyer Isuzu¹²,Ellington David¹²,Johnson Ryanne¹²,Carter Kathy¹²,Patel Sunita¹²,Willingham Robin¹²,Lukacz Emily¹²,Nager Charles¹²,Alperin Marianna¹²,Albo Michael¹²,Aughinbaugh Laura¹²,Brubaker Linda¹²,Burnett Lindsey¹²,Santiago-Lastra Yahir¹²,Herrala Kyle¹²,Rodriquez-Ponciano Dulce¹²,Smith Elia¹²,Dunivan Gena¹²,Komesu Yuko¹²,Rogers Rebecca¹²,Taylor Karen¹²,Jeppson Peter¹²,Connelly AnnaMarie¹²,Andy Uduak¹²,Arya Lily¹²,Carney Teresa¹²,Desai Kavita¹²,Kadam-Halani Priyanka¹²,Thompson Donna¹²,Kim Edward¹²,Brown Kimberly¹²,Meeks Jacqueline¹²,Lee Daniel¹²,Hassani Daisy¹²,Kennedy Zandra¹²,Flick Lorraine¹²,Borodyanskaya Yelizaveta¹²,Schaffer Joseph¹²,Corton Marlene¹²,Wai Clifford¹²,Balgobin Sunil¹²,Florian-Rodriguez Maria¹²,Reynolds Priscilla¹²,Atnip Shanna¹²,Schmidt Alison¹²,Lloyd Katherine¹²,Hegan Christina¹²,Medrano Rachael¹²,Burris Agnes¹²,Bonilla Juanita¹²,Ripperda Christopher¹²,Hamner Jennifer¹²,Jackson Lindsey¹²,Hare Adam¹²,Sawyer Polina¹²,Tappy Erryn¹²,Stork Abby¹²

Affiliation:

1. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente San Diego, San Diego, California

2. Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham

3. The Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

4. Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Magee Womens Research Institute, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

5. Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina

6. Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

7. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas

8. The Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque

9. Center for Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio

10. RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

11. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland

12. for the NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network

Abstract

ImportanceThe optimal surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy remains undetermined.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of 3 surgical approaches for vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a multisite, 3-arm, superiority and noninferiority randomized clinical trial. Outcomes were assessed biannually up to 60 months, until the last participant reached 36 months of follow-up. Settings included 9 clinical sites in the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Between February 2016 and April 2019, women with symptomatic vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy who desired surgical correction were randomized. Data were analyzed from November 2022 to January 2023.InterventionsMesh-augmented (either abdominally [sacrocolpopexy] or through a vaginal incision [transvaginal mesh]) vs transvaginal native tissue repair.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was time until composite treatment failure (including retreatment for prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms) evaluated with survival models. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported symptom-specific results, objective measures, and adverse events.ResultsOf 376 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [8.7] years), 360 (96%) had surgery, and 296 (82%) completed follow-up. Adjusted 36-month failure incidence was 28% (95% CI, 20%-37%) for sacrocolpopexy, 29% (95% CI, 21%-38%) for transvaginal mesh, and 43% (95% CI, 35%-53%) for native tissue repair. Sacrocolpopexy was found to be superior to native tissue repair (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57; 99% CI, 0.33-0.98; P = .01). Transvaginal mesh was not statistically superior to native tissue after adjustment for multiple comparisons (aHR, 0.60; 99% CI, 0.34-1.03; P = .02) but was noninferior to sacrocolpopexy (aHR, 1.05; 97% CI, 0-1.65; P = .01). All 3 surgeries resulted in sustained benefits in subjective outcomes. Mesh exposure rates were low (4 of 120 [3%] for sacrocolpopexy and 6 of 115 [5%] for transvaginal mesh) as were the rates of dyspareunia.Conclusions and RelevanceAmong participants undergoing apical repair for vaginal vault prolapse, sacrocolpopexy and transvaginal mesh resulted in similar composite failure rates at study completion; both had lower failure rates than native tissue repair, although only sacrocolpopexy met a statistically significant difference. Low rates of mesh complications and adverse events corroborated the overall safety of each approach.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02676973

Publisher

American Medical Association (AMA)

Link

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/articlepdf/2819032/jamasurgery_menefee_2024_oi_240026_1723061378.18838.pdf

Reference32 articles.

1. Progression and remission of pelvic organ prolapse: a longitudinal study of menopausal women.;Handa;Am J Obstet Gynecol,2004

2. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity.;Hendrix;Am J Obstet Gynecol,2002

3. Body image perceptions in women with pelvic organ prolapse: a qualitative study.;Lowder;Am J Obstet Gynecol,2011

4. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis.;Friedman;Int Urogynecol J,2018

5. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.;Smith;Obstet Gynecol,2010

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. The Distortion of the Composite Prism;JAMA Surgery;2024-08-01

2. Error in Figure 2;JAMA Surgery;2024-08-01