• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
Grand Rounds

Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Vaginal Hysterectomy vs Mesh 5-Year SUPeR Trial Results

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • Vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft (vaginal mesh hysteropexy) have both been used for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse
    • The mesh product has been removed from the US market by the FDA pending further research
  • 3-year follow-up study suggested better primary outcomes with hysteropexy, but the results were nonsignificant (P=0.06)
  • Nager et al. (AJOG, 2021) compared the 5-year efficacy and adverse events of hysterectomy and hysteropexy for treating uterovaginal prolapse

METHODS:

  • Multisite randomized superiority clinical trial
  • Participants
    • Postmenopausal women requesting vaginal surgery for symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse
  • Interventions
    • Hysteropexy: sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft
    • Hysterectomy: vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension
  • Study design
    • Participants were masked to their intervention group
    • 6-month study intervals through 60 months
  • Primary outcome
    • A failure composite outcome (retreatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms)
  • Secondary outcomes
    • Complications or adverse events
    • Individual anatomic measures of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification examination
    • Presence, severity, and impact and bother of prolapse, urinary, bowel, and pain symptoms (measured by validated questionnaires)

RESULTS:

  • Hysteropexy: 93 women | Hysterectomy: 90 women
    • Mean age 66 years; 89% completed 5-year follow-up
  • There were fewer failures with hysteropexy, compared with hysterectomy
    • Hysteropexy: 37% failure rate
    • Hysterectomy: 54% failure rate
    • Difference −18% (95% CI, −33% to −3%)
    • Adjusted hazard ratio 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.94); P=0.03
  • No group differences were demonstrated in patient-reported
    • Pelvic floor symptoms
    • Prolapse symptoms
    • Bowel function symptoms
    • General quality of life
    • Body image
    • Pelvic pain
  • Adverse events for hysteropexy vs hysterectomy
    • Mesh exposure: 8% vs 0% | No surgeries required for any mesh exposures | 6 treated with estrogen cream
    • Granulation tissue after 12 weeks: 1% vs 12%
    • Suture exposure after 12 weeks: 3% vs 21%

CONCLUSION:

  • At 5-year follow-up, failure rates for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse with sacrospinous hysteropexy with mesh was 18% lower than vaginal hysterectomy uterosacral ligament suspension
  • Vaginal hysterectomy was associated with more frequent foreign body reactions such as apical granulation tissue 
  • There were no differences in patient-reported pain or quality of life
  • The authors state

In designing the current trial, investigators sought to address the safety and efficacy issues raised in the 2011 FDA Safety Communication

The FDA order does not prevent surgeons from using mesh for transvaginal repair, and this study suggests there may be benefit

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial

Want to stay on top of key guidelines and research papers?

ObGFirst® – Try It Free! »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Results From the OPTIMAL Trial Five Years Out: Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation for Prolapse?
Comparing the Use of Mesh Against Standard Repair for Prolapse
SUPeR Trial Results: Hysterectomy vs Mesh for Uterovaginal Prolapse

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

Are you an
ObG Insider?

Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free

  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!
ObGFirst Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site