Apical Suspension Repair for Vaginal Vault Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial

JAMA Surg. 2024 Aug 1;159(8):845-855. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.1206.

Abstract

Importance: The optimal surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy remains undetermined.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of 3 surgical approaches for vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy.

Design, setting, and participants: This 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.

Interventions: Mesh-augmented (either abdominally [sacrocolpopexy] or through a vaginal incision [transvaginal mesh]) vs transvaginal native tissue repair.

Main outcomes and measures: The 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.

Results: Of 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 relevance: Among 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 registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02676973.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Comparative Study
  • Comment

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Female
  • Gynecologic Surgical Procedures / methods
  • Humans
  • Hysterectomy* / methods
  • Middle Aged
  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse* / surgery
  • Postoperative Complications / epidemiology
  • Surgical Mesh*
  • Treatment Outcome
  • Vagina / surgery

Associated data

  • ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT02676973