↓ Skip to main content

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012376
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christopher Maher, Benjamin Feiner, Kaven Baessler, Corina Christmann-Schmid, Nir Haya, Julie Brown

Abstract

Apical vaginal prolapse is a descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available and there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best. To evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings (searched July 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched January 2016). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site). We included 30 RCTs (3414 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence quality ranged from low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodological reporting and inconsistency. Vaginal procedures versus sacral colpopexy (six RCTs, n = 583; one to four-year review). Awareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 4.21, 3 RCTs, n = 277, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). If 7% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 14% (7% to 27%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. Repeat surgery for prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.28, 95% CI 1.20 to 4.32; 4 RCTs, n = 383, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 4% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, between 5% and 18% would require it after vaginal procedures.We found no conclusive evidence that vaginal procedures increaserepeat surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) (RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.86; 4 RCTs, n = 395; I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). If 3% of women require repeat surgery for SUI after sacral colpopexy, between 2% and 16% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures. Recurrent prolapse is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.89, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.70; 4 RCTs, n = 390; I(2) = 41%, moderate-quality evidence). If 23% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, about 41% (31% to 63%) are likely to do so after vaginal procedures.The effect of vaginal procedures on bladder injury was uncertain (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.14 to 2.36; 5 RCTs, n = 511; I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). SUI was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Dyspareunia was also more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.50; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I(2) = 43%, low-quality evidence). Vaginal surgery with mesh versus without mesh (6 RCTs, n = 598, 1-3 year review). Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.08 95% CI 0.35 to 3.30 1 RCT n = 54, low quality evidence). The confidence interval was wide suggesting that if 18% of women are aware of prolapse after surgery without mesh, between 6% and 59% will be aware of prolapse after surgery with mesh. Repeat surgery for prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.60; 5 RCTs, n = 497; I(2) = 9%, low-quality evidence). If 4% of women require repeat surgery for prolapse after surgery without mesh, 1% to 7% are likely to do so after surgery with mesh.We found no conclusive evidence that surgery with mesh increases repeat surgery for SUI (RR 4.91, 95% CI 0.86 to 27.94; 2 RCTs, n = 220; I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence). The confidence interval was wide suggesting that if 2% of women require repeat surgery for SUI after vaginal colpopexy without mesh, 2% to 53% are likely to do so after surgery with mesh.We found no clear evidence that surgery with mesh decreases recurrent prolapse (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.40; 3 RCTs n = 269; I(2) = 91%, low-quality evidence). The confidence interval was very wide and there was serious inconsistency between the studies. Other outcomes There is probably little or no difference between the groups in rates of SUI (de novo) (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.99; 4 RCTs, n = 295; I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) or dyspareunia (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.55 to 2.66; 5 RCTs, n = 501; I(2) = 0% moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is any difference for bladder injury (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 9.89; 4 RCTs, n = 445; I(2) = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy versus alternatives for uterine prolapse (six studies, n = 667)No clear conclusions could be reached from the available evidence, though one RCT found that awareness of prolapse was less likely after hysterectomy than after abdominal sacrohysteropexy (RR 0.38, 955 CI 0.15 to 0.98, n = 84, moderate-quality evidence).Other comparisonsThere was no evidence of a difference for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (two RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (two RCTs), different routes for sacral colpopexy (four RCTs), or between sacral colpopexy with and without continence surgery (four RCTs). Sacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, postoperative SUI and dyspareunia than a variety of vaginal interventions.The limited evidence does not support use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse. Most of the evaluated transvaginal meshes are no longer available and new lighter meshes currently lack evidence of safetyThe evidence was inconclusive when comparing access routes for sacral colpopexy.No clear conclusion can be reached from the available data comparing uterine preserving surgery versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 4%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 1%
Librarian 1 1%
Researcher 1 1%
Student > Master 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 60 90%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 7%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Unknown 60 90%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,281,809
of 14,546,774 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,636
of 11,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,342
of 266,838 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#76
of 192 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,546,774 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,838 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 192 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.