Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Mar;24(13):1–220. doi: 10.3310/hta24130

Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.

Christine Hemming, Lynda Constable, Beatriz Goulao, Mary Kilonzo, Dwayne Boyers, Andrew Elders, Kevin Cooper, Anthony Smith, Robert Freeman, Suzanne Breeman, Alison McDonald, Suzanne Hagen, Isobel Montgomery, John Norrie, Cathryn Glazener
PMCID: PMC7086306  PMID: 32138809

Abstract

BACKGROUND

New surgical approaches for apical prolapse have gradually been introduced, with few prospective randomised controlled trial data to evaluate their safety and efficacy compared with traditional methods.

OBJECTIVE

To compare surgical uterine preservation with vaginal hysterectomy in women with uterine prolapse and abdominal procedures with vaginal procedures in women with vault prolapse in terms of clinical effectiveness, adverse events, quality of life and cost-effectiveness.

DESIGN

Two parallel randomised controlled trials (i.e. Uterine and Vault). Allocation was by remote web-based randomisation (1 : 1 ratio), minimised on the need for concomitant anterior and/or posterior procedure, concomitant incontinence procedure, age and surgeon.

SETTING

UK hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Uterine trial - 563 out of 565 randomised women had uterine prolapse surgery. Vault trial - 208 out of 209 randomised women had vault prolapse surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Uterine trial - uterine preservation or vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - abdominal or vaginal vault suspension.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measures were women's prolapse symptoms (as measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score), prolapse-specific quality of life and cost-effectiveness (as assessed by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year).

RESULTS

Uterine trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for uterine preservation was 4.2 (standard deviation 4.9) versus vaginal hysterectomy with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 4.2 (standard deviation 5.3) (mean difference -0.05, 95% confidence interval -0.91 to 0.81). Serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (uterine preservation 5.4% vs. vaginal hysterectomy 5.9%; risk ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 1.75). There was no difference in overall prolapse stage. Significantly more women would recommend vaginal hysterectomy to a friend (odds ratio 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.83). Uterine preservation was £235 (95% confidence interval £6 to £464) more expensive than vaginal hysterectomy and generated non-significantly fewer quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference -0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.026 to 0.019). Vault trial - adjusting for baseline and minimisation covariates, the mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score at 12 months for an abdominal procedure was 5.6 (standard deviation 5.4) versus vaginal procedure with a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score of 5.9 (standard deviation 5.4) (mean difference -0.61, 95% confidence interval -2.08 to 0.86). The serious adverse event rates were similar between the groups (abdominal 5.9% vs. vaginal 6.0%; risk ratio 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.27 to 3.44). The objective anterior prolapse stage 2b or more was higher in the vaginal group than in the abdominal group (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.79). There was no difference in the overall prolapse stage. An abdominal procedure was £570 (95% confidence interval £459 to £682) more expensive than a vaginal procedure and generated non-significantly more quality-adjusted life-years (mean difference 0.004, 95% confidence interval -0.031 to 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between uterine preservation and vaginal hysterectomy. Vault trial - in terms of efficacy, quality of life or adverse events in the short term, no difference was identified between an abdominal and a vaginal approach.

FUTURE WORK

Long-term follow-up for at least 6 years is ongoing to identify recurrence rates, need for further prolapse surgery, adverse events and cost-effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN86784244.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 13. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

About 1 in 10 women has pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, and around three of these women require a further operation. The aim of this study was to identify the most appropriate surgery for two different types of POP found in women: (1) when the uterus itself has come down – the Uterine trial – and (2) when a previous hysterectomy has resulted in the top of the vagina coming down – the Vault trial. In the Uterine trial, preserving the uterus was compared with removing it vaginally. In the Vault trial, uplifting and supporting the vault prolapse using an abdominal approach was compared with a vaginal approach. Women were asked about their prolapse and other symptoms affecting their quality of life (QoL). The majority of women reported that their prolapse symptoms and QoL improved after surgery. The women’s prolapse was also measured by clinical examination before and 12 months after their operation. All of these results were compared between the different procedures. It was found that all the surgical procedures were successful within the 12-month review period. Abdominal surgery in the Vault trial as well as any that was required in the Uterine trial, was, however, slightly less cost-effective. Serious complications and the need for further prolapse surgery were similar in all groups. A small number of women did require additional surgery for prolapse recurrence or for small mesh exposure when additional or prolapse procedures had involved mesh. Women in both trials will be followed up for at least 6 years to determine longer-term costs and consequences.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Glazener C, Breeman S, Elders A, Hemming C, Cooper K, Freeman R, et al. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical options for the management of anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: two randomised controlled trials within a comprehensive cohort study – results from the PROSPECT Study. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(95). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20950 doi: 10.3310/hta20950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Hunskaar S, Burgio KL, Clark A, Lapitan MC, Nelson R, Sillen U, et al. Epidemiology of Urinary (UI) and Faecal (FI) Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP). In Abrams P, Cardozo L, Khoury S and Wein A, editors. Incontinence 3rd Edition. Bristol: International Continence Society; 2005. pp. 255–312.
  3. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:501–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6 doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  4. Phillips CH, Anthony F, Benyon C, Monga AK. Collagen metabolism in the uterosacral ligaments and vaginal skin of women with uterine prolapse. BJOG 2006;113:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00773.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00773.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, Kenton K, Meikle S, Schaffer J, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA 2008;300:1311–16. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.11.1311 doi: 10.1001/jama.300.11.1311. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Samuelsson EC, Victor FTA, Tibblin G, Svardsudd KF. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;180:299–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70203-6 doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70203-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  7. Swift SE, Tate SB, Nicholas J. Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;189:372–7. https://doi.org/10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00698-7 doi: 10.1067/S0002-9378(03)00698-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1160–6. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2002.123819 doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.123819. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Bugge C, Adams EJ, Gopinath D, Reid F. Pessaries (mechanical devices) for pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;2:CD004010. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004010.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004010.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Oliver R, Thakar R, Sultan AH. The history and usage of the vaginal pessary: a review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2011;156:125–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.039 doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.12.039. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Maher C, Baessler K, Barber M, Cheon C, Consten E, Cooper K. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery (Committee 15). International Continence Society, Florence, Italy, 12–15 September 2017.
  12. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Wagg A, Wein A, eds. Incontinence. 6th ed. Bristol: International Continence Society; 2017.
  13. Hagen S, Stark D. Conservative prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;12:CD003882. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003882.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003882.pub4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Ismail SI, Bain C, Hagen S. Oestrogens for treatment or prevention of pelvic organ prolapse in postmenopausal women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;9:CD007063. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007063.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007063.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. Weber MA, Kleijn MH, Langendam M, Limpens J, Heineman MJ, Roovers JP. Local oestrogen for pelvic floor disorders: a systematic review. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0136265. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136265 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136265. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286 doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:1096–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729 doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. NHS Digital. Hospital Admitted Patient Care Activity, 2016–17. Leeds: NHS Digital; 2017. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB30098 (accessed 24 January 2018).
  19. Office for National Statistics. Z1 – Zipped Population Projections Data Files, UK. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2017. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/datasets/z1zippedpopulationprojectionsdatafilesuk (accessed 24 January 2018).
  20. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Uterine Prolapse. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/conditions-and-diseases/gynaecological-conditions/uterine-prolapse/products?Status=Published (accessed February 2019).
  21. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Vault Prolapse. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. URL: www.nice.org.uk/Search?q=vault+prolapse (accessed 24 January 2018).
  22. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;10:CD012376. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012376 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Sacrocolpopexy with Hysterectomy Using Mesh to Repair Uterine Prolapse. Interventional Procedures Guidance IPG577. Manchester: NICE; 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg577 (accessed 4 July 2017).
  24. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Sacrocolpopexy Using Mesh to Repair Vaginal Vault Prolapse. Interventional Procedures Guidance IPG583. Manchester: NICE; 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg583 (accessed 23 January 2018).
  25. Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, Ananth CV, Lewin SN. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:233–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318299a6cf doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318299a6cf. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, MacLennan G, Bain C, Fraser C, Burr J. Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2008;115:1350–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471–0528.2008.01845.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471–0528.2008.01845.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Uterine Suspension Using Mesh (Including Sacrohysteropexy) to Repair Uterine Prolapse. Interventional Procedures Guidance IPG584. Manchester: NICE; 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg584 (accessed 23 January 2018).
  28. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Infracoccygeal Sacropexy Using Mesh to Repair Uterine Prolapse. Interventional Procedures Guidance IPG582. Manchester: NICE; 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg582 (accessed 23 January 2018).
  29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Infracoccygeal Sacropexy Using Mesh to Repair Vaginal Vault Prolapse. Interventional Procedures Guidance IPG581. Manchester: NICE; 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg581 (accessed 23 January 2018).
  30. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;4:CD004014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Glazener C, Constable L, Hemming C, Breeman S, Elders A, Cooper K, et al. Two parallel, pragmatic, UK multicentre, randomised controlled trials comparing surgical options for upper compartment (vault or uterine) pelvic organ prolapse (the VUE Study): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2016;17:441. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063–016–1576-x doi: 10.1186/s13063–016–1576-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, Athanasiou S, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:527–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192–012–1726-y doi: 10.1007/s00192–012–1726-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Hagen S, Glazener C, Sinclair L, Stark D, Bugge C. Psychometric properties of the pelvic organ prolapse symptom score. BJOG 2009;116:25–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471–0528.2008.01903.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471–0528.2008.01903.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Hagen S, Glazener C, Cook J, Herbison P, Toozs-Hobson P. Further properties of the pelvic organ prolapse symptom score: minimally important change and test-retest reliability. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29:1055–6.
  35. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQoL health states. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002 doi: 10.1097/00005650-199711000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Abrams P, Avery K, Gardener N, Donovan J, on behalf of the ICIQ Advisory Board. The international consultation on incontinence modular questionnaire. J Urol 2006;175:1063–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00348-4 doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00348-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardisation of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0 doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  38. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA 2013;309:2016–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.4919 doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Fayyad A, Hill S, Gurung V, Prashar S, Smith AR. How accurate is symptomatic and clinical evaluation of prolapse prior to surgical repair? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2007;18:1179–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192–007–0306-z doi: 10.1007/s00192–007–0306-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Drossman DA, Dumitrascu DL. Rome III: new standard for functional gastrointestinal disorders. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2006;15:237–41. [PubMed]
  41. Scottish Government. Transvaginal Mesh Implants Independent Review: Final Report. Edinburgh: Scottish Government; 2017. URL: www.gov.scot/Publications/2017/03/3336/0 (accessed 1 February 2018).
  42. NHS England. Mesh Oversight Group Report. London: NHS England; 2017. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mesh-oversight-group-report.pdf (accessed 1 February 2018).
  43. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary. (online) London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed February 2019).
  44. Information Services Division Scotland. Specialty Costs – Detailed Tables. Edinburgh: Information Services Division Scotland. URL: www.isdscotland.org/Health-topics/Finance/Costs/Detailed-Tables/Speciality-Costs/index.asp (accessed 6 February 2018).
  45. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2015–16. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2016. URL: www.gov.uk/government/publications/nhs-reference-costs-2015-to-2016 (accessed 3 May 2017).
  46. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2016. URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/2016/index.php (accessed 13 May 2017).
  47. Information Services Division Scotland. ISD Scotland 63. Edinburgh: Information Services Division Scotland. URL: www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Finance/Costbook/Speciality-Costs/Overhead.asp (accessed October 2012).
  48. Information Services Division Scotland. R140X Theatre Services. Edinburgh: Information Services Division Scotland. URL: www.isdscotland.org/Health-topics/Finance/Costs/Detailed-Tables/Theatres.asp (accessed 1 February 2018).
  49. NHS Business Services Authority. Electronic Drug Tariff. Newcastle upon Tyne: NHS Business Services Authority. URL: www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/pharmacies-gp-practices-and-appliance-contractors/drug-tariff (accessed 1 October 2018).
  50. Information Services Division Scotland. Costs: File Listings. Edinburgh: Information Services Division Scotland. URL: www.isdscotland.org/Health-Topics/Finance/Costs/File-Listings-2016.asp (accessed 11 January 2017).
  51. Warrington Clinical Commissioning Group. Continence and Catheter Care Formulary. Warrington: Warrington Clinical Commissioning Group; 2014. URL: www.warringtonccg.nhs.uk/Page%20Images/public-info/Catheter%20Care%20Formulary%20Revised%20February%202014%20revised.pdf (accessed February 2019).
  52. Office for National Statistics. Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings: 2016 Provisional Results. Newport: Office for National Statistics; 2016. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2016provisionalresults (accessed 11 January 2017).
  53. EuroQoL Group. EuroQoL: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9 doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944 doi: 10.1002/hec.944. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
  56. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University; 2005.
  57. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE Guidelines: The Manual. Manchester: NICE; 2014. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/pmg20/resources/developing-nice-guidelines-the-manual-pdf-72286708700869 (accessed 18 May 2017). [PubMed]
  58. Royston P. Multiple imputation of missing values: update of ice. Stata J 2005;5:527–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X0500500404 doi: 10.1177/1536867X0500500404. [DOI]
  59. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997;6:327–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199707)6:4<327::AID-HEC282>3.0.CO;2-W doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1050(199707)6:4&#x0003c;327::AID-HEC282&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-W. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ 2004;13:461–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.843 doi: 10.1002/hec.843. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010;340:c332. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c332 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c332. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  62. Office for National Statistics. Interim Life Tables 2007–2009. Newport: Office for National Statistics. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies#datasets (accessed February 2019).
  63. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. Manchester: NICE; 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9/chapter/foreword (accessed 7 February 2018). [PubMed]
  64. Latimer N. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 14: Survival Analysis for Economic Evaluations Alongside Clinical Trials – Extrapolation with Patient-level Data. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. URL: http://scharr.dept.shef.ac.uk/nicedsu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/03/NICE-DSU-TSD-Survival-analysis.updated-March-2013.v2.pdf (accessed 7 February 2018). [PubMed]
  65. Latimer NR. Survival analysis for economic evaluations alongside clinical trials – extrapolation with patient-level data: inconsistencies, limitations, and a practical guide. Med Decis Making 2013;33:743–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X12472398 doi: 10.1177/0272989X12472398. [DOI] [PubMed]
  66. Ara R, Wailoo A. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 12: The Use of Health State Utility Values in Decision Models. Manchester: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. URL: http://scharr.dept.shef.ac.uk/nicedsu/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2016/03/TSD12-Utilities-in-modelling-FINAL.pdf (accessed 7 February 2018). [PubMed]
  67. Løwenstein E, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192–014–2413-y doi: 10.1007/s00192&#x02013;014&#x02013;2413-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  68. Haya N, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, de Tayrac R, Dietz V, Guldberg R, et al. Prolapse and continence surgery in countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2012. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212:755.e1–755.e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.017 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.017. [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L. Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979–97. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:108–15. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.101 doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.101. [DOI] [PubMed]
  70. Shah AD, Kohli N, Rajan SS, Hoyte L. The age distribution, rates, and types of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in the USA. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008;19:421–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192–007–0457-y doi: 10.1007/s00192&#x02013;007&#x02013;0457-y. [DOI] [PubMed]
  71. Lisonkova S, Lavery JA, Ananth CV, Chen I, Muraca G, Cundiff GW, Joseph KS. Temporal trends in obstetric trauma and inpatient surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: an age-period-cohort analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;215:208.e1–208.e12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.027 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.02.027. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Swift SE. The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;183:277–85. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2000.107583 doi: 10.1067/mob.2000.107583. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Buckwalter JG, Burchette RJ, Nager CW, Luber KM. Epidemiology of prolapse and incontinence questionnaire: validation of a new epidemiologic survey. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2005;16:272–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1314-5 doi: 10.1007/s00192-005-1314-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  74. Ellerkmann RM, Cundiff GW, Melick CF, Nihira MA, Leffler K, Bent AE. Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;185:1332–7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.119078 doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.119078. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes towards hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2013;19:103–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667 doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209:470.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Transvaginal Mesh Repair of Anterior or Posterior Vaginal Wall Prolapse. Manchester: NICE; 2017. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg599 (accessed 13 February 2018).
  78. Lin TY, Su TH, Wang YL, Lee MY, Hsieh CH, Wang KG, Chen GD. Risk factors for failure of transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension in the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. J Formos Med Assoc 2005;104:249–53. [PubMed]
  79. Neuman M, Lavy Y. Conservation of the prolapsed uterus is a valid option: medium term results of a prospective comparative study with the posterior intravaginal slingoplasty operation. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2007;18:889–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0262-z doi: 10.1007/s00192-006-0262-z. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Romanzi LJ, Tyagi R. Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ? Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:625–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1635-5 doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1635-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  81. Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2016;27:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9 doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  82. Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J 2016;27:165–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1 doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  83. Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L. Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195:1837–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.065 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.065. [DOI] [PubMed]
  84. Hsu Y, Chen L, Summers A, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO, DeLancey JO. Anterior vaginal wall length and degree of anterior compartment prolapse seen on dynamic MRI. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008;19:137–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0405-x doi: 10.1007/s00192-007-0405-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL, Schaffer J, Chen Z, Spino C, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:600–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b2b1ae. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  86. Hagen S, Stark D, Glazener C, Dickson S, Barry S, Elders A, et al. Individualised pelvic floor muscle training in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POPPY): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2014;383:796–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61977-7 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61977-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  87. Paraiso MF, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CC, Barber MD. Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011;118:1005–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318231537c doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318231537c. [DOI] [PubMed]
  88. King AB, Goldman HB. Stress incontinence surgery at the time of prolapse surgery: mandatory or forbidden? World J Urol 2015;33:1257–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-015-1591-7 doi: 10.1007/s00345-015-1591-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  89. Jha S, Cutner A, Moran P. The UK National Prolapse Survey: 10 years on. Int Urogynecol J 2018;29:795–801. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192–017–3476–3 doi: 10.1007/s00192&#x02013;017&#x02013;3476&#x02013;3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  90. BBC News. Immediate Stop to NHS Mesh Operations. URL: www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44763673 (accessed 7 July 2018).
  91. Smyth C. Pause in Surgical Mesh Use to be Extended to Northern Ireland. URL: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44772354 (accessed 10 July 2018).
  92. Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE. Complication and reoperation rates after apical vaginal prolapse surgical repair: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2009;113:367–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195888d doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195888d. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Glazener C, Elders A, MacArthur C, Lancashire RJ, Herbison P, Hagen S, et al. Childbirth and prolapse: long-term associations with the symptoms and objective measurement of pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG 2013;120:161–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12075 doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12075. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, Geiss I, Riss P. An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2010;21:299–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192–009–1033–4 doi: 10.1007/s00192&#x02013;009&#x02013;1033&#x02013;4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  95. Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, Carabaneanu A, Coccia EM, Mecacci F, Scarselli G. True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. J Reprod Med 1999;44:679–84. [PubMed]
  96. Morley GW, DeLancey JO. Sacrospinous ligament fixation for eversion of the vagina. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1988;158:872–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(88)90088-9 doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(88)90088-9. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Cooper K, Lee A, Chien P, Raja E, Timmaraju V, Bhattacharya S. Outcomes following hysterectomy or endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: retrospective analysis of hospital episode statistics in Scotland. BJOG 2011;118:1171–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03011.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03011.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Bradley CS, Nygaard IE, Brown MB, Gutman RE, Kenton KS, Whitehead WE, et al. Bowel symptoms in women 1 year after sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;197:642.e1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.023 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.08.023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1496–501. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.114868 doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.114868. [DOI] [PubMed]
  100. Culligan PJ, Salamon C, Priestley JL, Shariati A. Porcine dermis compared with polypropylene mesh for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a randomised controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:143–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827558dc doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827558dc. [DOI] [PubMed]
  101. Claerhout F, De Ridder D, Van Beckevoort D, Coremans G, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J. Sacrocolpopexy using xenogenic acellular collagen in patients at increased risk for graft-related complications. Neurourol Urodyn 2010;29:563–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20805 doi: 10.1002/nau.20805. [DOI] [PubMed]
  102. Quiroz LH, Gutman RE, Shippey S, Cundiff GW, Sanses T, Blomquist JL, Handa VL. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: anatomic outcomes and complications with Pelvicol, autologous and synthetic graft materials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;198:557.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.050 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.050. [DOI] [PubMed]
  103. Deprest J, De Ridder D, Roovers JP, Werbrouck E, Coremans G, Claerhout F. Medium term outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with xenografts compared to synthetic grafts. J Urol 2009;182:2362–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.043 doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.07.043. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. PROACT Medical Ltd. Our Products. 2018. URL: www.proactmedical.co.uk/our-products (last accessed 20 June 2019).
  105. Roovers JP, van der Vaart CH, van der Bom JG, van Leeuwen JH, Scholten PC, Heintz AP. A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG 2004;111:50–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00001.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00001.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. Malandri M, Iordanidou E, Takou M, Moraitis B, Balaxis D. A Randomised Comparison of Two Vaginal Procedures for the Treatment of Stage Two, or Higher Uterine Prolapse: Hysterectomy With Mesh Versus Only Mesh Implantation. International Continence Society, October 2012, Beijing, China, abstract no. 101.
  107. Detollenaere RJ, Kreuwel IA, Dijkstra JR, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HW. The impact of sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments on sexual function in women with uterine prolapse: a secondary analysis of a randomised comparative study. J Sex Med 2016;13:213–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.006. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. Carramao S, Auge APF, Pacetta AM. A randomised comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of uterine prolapse using polypropylene mesh: histateroxy versus hysterectomy. Rev Col Bras Cir 2009;36:65–72. doi: 10.1590/s0100-69912009000100012. [DOI] [PubMed]
  109. Juneja M, Munday D, Kopetz V, Barry C. Hysterectomy vs No Hysterectomy for Uterine Prolapse in Conjunction with Posterior Infracococcygeal Colpopexy – A Randomised Pilot Study 12 Months Review. International Continence Society and International Urogynaecological Association, 23–7 August 2010, Toronto, ON, Canada, abstract no. 692.
  110. Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Schraffordt Koops SE. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomised study. Int Urogynecol J 2010;21:209–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1014-7 doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-1014-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  111. Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomised pilot study. Int Urogynecol J 2015;26:1687–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2761-2 doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2761-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  112. Jeng CJ, Yang YC, Tzeng CR, Shen J, Wang LR. Sexual functioning after vaginal hysterectomy or transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension for uterine prolapse: a comparison. J Reprod Med 2005;50:669–74. [PubMed]
  113. Maher CF, Qatawneh AM, Dwyer PL, Carey MP, Cornish A, Schluter PJ. Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomised study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;190:20–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.031 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.031. [DOI] [PubMed]
  114. Maher CF, Feiner B, Decuyper EM, Nichlos CJ, Hickey KV, O’Rourke P. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011;204:360.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016 doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  115. Lim YN, Rosamilia A, Dwyer PL, Alvarez J, Chao F, Murray C, et al. Randomised controlled trial of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse treatment with extraperitoneal vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension with anterior mesh reinforcement vs sacrocolpopexy (open/laparoscopic). Int Urogynecol J 2012;23:S48–9.
  116. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research. In Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analysing Qualitative Data. London: Routledge; 1994. pp. 173–94. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_9 doi: 10.4324/9780203413081_chapter_9. [DOI]
  117. Snowdon C, Garcia J, Elbourne D. Making sense of randomization; responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Social Sci Med 1997;45:1337–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00063-4 doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(97)00063-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  118. Wade J, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Neal DE, Hamdy FC. It’s not just what you say, it’s also how you say it: opening the ‘black box’ of informed consent appointments in randomised controlled trials. Soc Sci Med 2009;68:2018–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023 doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.02.023. [DOI] [PubMed]
  119. Fung EK, Loré JM. Randomised controlled trials for evaluating surgical questions. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;128:631–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.128.6.631 doi: 10.1001/archotol.128.6.631. [DOI] [PubMed]
  120. McCann S, Campbell M, Entwistle V. Recruitment to clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies of reasons for participation. J Health Serv Res Policy 2013;18:233–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819613483126 doi: 10.1177/1355819613483126. [DOI] [PubMed]
  121. Jackson CJ, Dixon-Woods M, Eborall H, Kenyon S, Toozs-Hobson P, Tincello DG. Women’s views and experiences of a patient preference trial in surgery: a qualitative study of the CARPET1 trial. Clin Trials 2010;7:696–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774510381286 doi: 10.1177/1740774510381286. [DOI] [PubMed]
  122. Jenkins V, Farewell V, Farewell D, Darmanin J, Wagstaff J, Langridge C, Fallowfield L, TTT Steering committee. Drivers and barriers to patient participation in RCTs. Br J Cancer 2013;108:1402–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.113 doi: 10.1038/bjc.2013.113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

RESOURCES