The aim of the study was to compare anterior and overall prolapse prevalence at 1 year in surgical participants with or without concomitant anterior repair (AR) at the time of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) or uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS). Methods This is a secondary analysis of two surgical trials; concomitant AR was performed at surgeon's discretion. Anterior anatomic success was defined as pelvic organ prolapse quantification of prolapse point Ba ≤0 and overall success was defined as pelvic organ prolapse quantification points Ba, Bp, and C ≤0 at 12 months. Results Sixty-three percent (441/701) of the participants underwent concomitant AR and were older, more often postmenopausal, had previous hysterectomy, and had higher-stage anterior, but not apical prolapse. Anterior anatomic success was marginally but statistically better in the combined group (SSLF and ULS) with concomitant AR (82% vs 80%, P = 0.03). In subanalyses, the improvement in anatomic support with AR was observed only in the SSLF subgroup (81% vs 73%, P = 0.02) and mostly in the SSLF subgroup with higher preoperative stage (74% vs 57%, P = 0.02). Anterior repair did not improve success rates in participants with lower-stage prolapse or undergoing ULS. Overall success rates were similar to anterior anatomic success rates. Participants with higher-stage preoperative anterior prolapse had significantly lower success rates. Conclusions In the absence of clinical trial data, this analysis suggests an AR should be considered for women with higher-stage prolapse undergoing an SSLF. Preoperative prolapse severity is a strong predictor of poor anatomic outcomes with native tissue vaginal apical surgeries.
- anterior repair
- pelvic organ prolapse
- sacrospinous ligament fixation
- surgical trial
- uterosacral ligament suspension
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Obstetrics and Gynecology