Making What Is Old New Again: A Narrative Review Informing Expert Consensus on Obliterative Management of Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
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.

让旧的重新成为新的:一篇关于原发性子宫阴道脱垂的手术治疗专家共识的综述。
前言和假设:子宫阴道脱垂的手术治疗采用阴道闭塞入路是一种安全、高效的盆腔器官脱垂矫正方法。然而,缺乏标准化的程序指南来优化结果。作为于2026年4月20日至21日在美国北卡罗来纳州温斯顿塞勒姆举行的全球子宫盆腔器官脱垂(U-POP)共识会议的一部分,我们的目的是比较原发性子宫阴道脱垂手术中女性阴道闭锁的具体技术。方法:对2020年12月31日至2025年11月4日的出版物进行了大型数据库系统评价。包括描述特定阴道切除技术的研究。主要结果是解剖上的成功,肿胀症状的主观改善和围手术期并发症。采用建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)标准评估证据质量。由于现有证据的质量较低,在U-POP会议上采用了一种改进的德尔菲共识过程来制定共识声明。结果:在纳入的587项研究中,24项队列和病例系列符合纳入标准。根据GRADE标准,所有研究均为低质量研究。通过改进的德尔菲过程,成功地达成了两个共识声明。结论:支持子宫阴道脱垂的特殊手术技术的高质量证据是有限的,大多数文献在2000年之前。尽管手术的安全性和有效性已得到证实,但所描述的手术技术存在显著的可变性。由于缺乏比较试验而无法进行荟萃分析,这些共识声明代表了迈向标准化的重要第一步。需要进一步的前瞻性和比较研究来更好地定义技术及其对现代手术结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
22.20%
发文量
406
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书