Tran T T Nguyen, Pouria Aryan, Mahshid Taheri, Ben Willem Mol, Marie Fidela R Paraiso, Jennifer Phung, Nadia Willison, Derek Abbott, Fariba Behnia-Willison
{"title":"Surgical Strategies for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Tran T T Nguyen, Pouria Aryan, Mahshid Taheri, Ben Willem Mol, Marie Fidela R Paraiso, Jennifer Phung, Nadia Willison, Derek Abbott, Fariba Behnia-Willison","doi":"10.1007/s00192-026-06857-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and hypothesis: </strong>Comparative effectiveness of surgical approaches to apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) remains uncertain, particularly regarding recurrence, reoperation and mesh-related outcomes over the available follow-up. The objective was to compare the effectiveness and safety of surgical treatments for primary apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Comprehensive searches were conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, WHO, and ICTRP databases from inception to 30 June 2025. English-language RCTs comparing surgical interventions for apical POP, alone or with other compartment repairs, were included if they reported anatomical recurrence after ≥ 1-year follow-up. Studies on non-surgical interventions were excluded. The primary outcome was anatomical recurrence; secondary outcomes included subjective recurrence, reoperation rates and mesh complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and study integrity was evaluated with the Trustworthiness in Randomised Controlled Trials checklist. A random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA; NMAstudio 2.0) was performed, grouping interventions by clinical similarity. Native tissue repair (NTR) served as the reference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-eight RCTs (6,846 participants) were included. Vaginal, abdominal and laparoscopic mesh repairs significantly reduced anatomical recurrence versus NTR (relative risk 0.59-0.66). Vaginal mesh and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with posterior plication lowered subjective recurrence (relative risk 0.22-0.51). Abdominal sacrocolpopexy was associated with fewer recurrence-related reoperations (relative risk 0.40), whereas vaginal mesh had higher mesh-related reoperations (relative risk 5.19).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mesh-augmented vaginal, laparoscopic and abdominal repairs reduce prolapse recurrence compared with NTR but carry increased mesh-related risks. Sacrocolpopexy was associated with favourable anatomical durability for apical POP.</p>","PeriodicalId":14355,"journal":{"name":"International Urogynecology Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-23","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/s00192-026-06857-4","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: Comparative effectiveness of surgical approaches to apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) remains uncertain, particularly regarding recurrence, reoperation and mesh-related outcomes over the available follow-up. The objective was to compare the effectiveness and safety of surgical treatments for primary apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Methods: Comprehensive searches were conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, Medline, Cochrane Library, WHO, and ICTRP databases from inception to 30 June 2025. English-language RCTs comparing surgical interventions for apical POP, alone or with other compartment repairs, were included if they reported anatomical recurrence after ≥ 1-year follow-up. Studies on non-surgical interventions were excluded. The primary outcome was anatomical recurrence; secondary outcomes included subjective recurrence, reoperation rates and mesh complications. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and study integrity was evaluated with the Trustworthiness in Randomised Controlled Trials checklist. A random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA; NMAstudio 2.0) was performed, grouping interventions by clinical similarity. Native tissue repair (NTR) served as the reference.
Results: Fifty-eight RCTs (6,846 participants) were included. Vaginal, abdominal and laparoscopic mesh repairs significantly reduced anatomical recurrence versus NTR (relative risk 0.59-0.66). Vaginal mesh and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with posterior plication lowered subjective recurrence (relative risk 0.22-0.51). Abdominal sacrocolpopexy was associated with fewer recurrence-related reoperations (relative risk 0.40), whereas vaginal mesh had higher mesh-related reoperations (relative risk 5.19).
Conclusions: Mesh-augmented vaginal, laparoscopic and abdominal repairs reduce prolapse recurrence compared with NTR but carry increased mesh-related risks. Sacrocolpopexy was associated with favourable anatomical durability for apical POP.
前言和假设:手术入路治疗盆腔器官脱垂(POP)的相对有效性仍然不确定,特别是在复发、再手术和网状相关的随访结果方面。目的是通过随机对照试验(rct)的系统评价和网络荟萃分析,比较原发性根尖盆腔器官脱垂(POP)手术治疗的有效性和安全性。方法:综合检索Web of Science、Scopus、Embase、Medline、Cochrane Library、WHO和ICTRP数据库,检索时间为Web of Science成立至2025年6月30日。比较手术干预根尖POP的英文rct,单独或其他隔间修复,如果他们报告解剖性复发≥1年随访后纳入。排除了非手术干预的研究。主要结果为解剖性复发;次要结果包括主观复发率、再手术率和补片并发症。使用Cochrane工具评估偏倚风险,使用随机对照试验可信度检查表评估研究完整性。采用随机效应网络荟萃分析(NMA; NMAstudio 2.0),根据临床相似性对干预措施进行分组。以天然组织修复(NTR)为参照。结果:共纳入58项随机对照试验(6846名受试者)。与NTR相比,阴道、腹部和腹腔镜补片修复可显著降低解剖性复发(相对风险0.59-0.66)。阴道补片和腹腔镜骶colpop固定术后扩术降低主观复发率(相对危险度0.22-0.51)。腹部骶colpop固定术与复发相关的再手术相关较少(相对风险0.40),而阴道补片与补片相关的再手术相关较高(相对风险5.19)。结论:与NTR相比,补网阴道、腹腔镜和腹部修复可减少脱垂复发,但补网相关风险增加。骶colpop固定术具有良好的根尖POP解剖耐久性。
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