Nicole P Jenkins, Peter L Rosenblatt, Katherine L Woodburn
{"title":"Making What Is Old New Again: A Narrative Review Informing Expert Consensus on Obliterative Management of Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse.","authors":"Nicole P Jenkins, Peter L Rosenblatt, Katherine L Woodburn","doi":"10.1007/s00192-026-06858-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Surgical management of uterovaginal prolapse using an obliterative vaginal approach is a safe and highly effective option for correction of pelvic organ prolapse. However, there is a lack of standardized procedural guidelines to optimize outcomes. As part of the Global Uterine Pelvic Organ Prolapse (U-POP) Consensus Conference held in Winston Salem, NC, USA, 20-21 April 2026, we aimed to compare specific techniques for colpocleisis in women undergoing surgery for primary uterovaginal prolapse.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A large database systematic review was conducted on publications 31 December 2020 through 4 November 2025. Studies that described specific colpocleisis techniques were included. Primary outcomes were anatomical success, subjective improvement in bulge symptoms, and perioperative complications. Evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Owing to the low quality of available evidence, a modified Delphi consensus process was used to develop consensus statements at the U-POP conference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 587 studies identified, 24 cohort and case series met the inclusion criteria. All studies were of low quality according to GRADE criteria. Two consensus statements were successfully agreed upon through the modified Delphi process.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>High-quality evidence supporting specific surgical techniques for obliterative repair of uterovaginal prolapse is limited, with most literature predating 2000. Significant variability exists in the operative techniques described, despite the established safety and efficacy of the procedure. Because meta-analysis was not possible owing to the absence of comparative trials, these consensus statements represent an important first step toward standardization. Further prospective and comparative research is needed to better define techniques and their impact on surgical outcomes in the modern age.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Urogynecology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-026-06858-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis: Surgical management of uterovaginal prolapse using an obliterative vaginal approach is a safe and highly effective option for correction of pelvic organ prolapse. However, there is a lack of standardized procedural guidelines to optimize outcomes. As part of the Global Uterine Pelvic Organ Prolapse (U-POP) Consensus Conference held in Winston Salem, NC, USA, 20-21 April 2026, we aimed to compare specific techniques for colpocleisis in women undergoing surgery for primary uterovaginal prolapse.
Methods: A large database systematic review was conducted on publications 31 December 2020 through 4 November 2025. Studies that described specific colpocleisis techniques were included. Primary outcomes were anatomical success, subjective improvement in bulge symptoms, and perioperative complications. Evidence quality was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Owing to the low quality of available evidence, a modified Delphi consensus process was used to develop consensus statements at the U-POP conference.
Results: Of the 587 studies identified, 24 cohort and case series met the inclusion criteria. All studies were of low quality according to GRADE criteria. Two consensus statements were successfully agreed upon through the modified Delphi process.
Conclusions: High-quality evidence supporting specific surgical techniques for obliterative repair of uterovaginal prolapse is limited, with most literature predating 2000. Significant variability exists in the operative techniques described, despite the established safety and efficacy of the procedure. Because meta-analysis was not possible owing to the absence of comparative trials, these consensus statements represent an important first step toward standardization. Further prospective and comparative research is needed to better define techniques and their impact on surgical outcomes in the modern age.
期刊介绍:
The International Urogynecology Journal is the official journal of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA).The International Urogynecology Journal has evolved in response to a perceived need amongst the clinicians, scientists, and researchers active in the field of urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders. Gynecologists, urologists, physiotherapists, nurses and basic scientists require regular means of communication within this field of pelvic floor dysfunction to express new ideas and research, and to review clinical practice in the diagnosis and treatment of women with disorders of the pelvic floor. This Journal has adopted the peer review process for all original contributions and will maintain high standards with regard to the research published therein. The clinical approach to urogynecology and pelvic floor disorders will be emphasized with each issue containing clinically relevant material that will be immediately applicable for clinical medicine. This publication covers all aspects of the field in an interdisciplinary fashion