Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Alas AN, Anger JT. Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Urol Rep. 2015;16(5):33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-015-0498-6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology, American Urogynecologic Society. Practice Bulletin No. 185: pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2017;130(5):e234–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002399.

Nygaard I, Bradley C, Brandt D, Women’s Health Initiative. Pelvic organ prolapse in older women: prevalence and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):489–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000136100.10818.d8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al. The standardisation of terminology in lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Urology. 2003;61(1):37–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0090-4295(02)02243-4.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cheon C, Maher C. Economics of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1873–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2178-8.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Margulies RU, Lewicky-Gaupp C, Fenner DE, McGuire EJ, Clemens JQ, Delancey JO. Complications requiring reoperation following vaginal mesh kit procedures for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(6):678.e1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.07.049.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Weidner AC, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development pelvic floor disorders Network. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1023–34. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.1719.

Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Dangal G, Poudel R, Shrestha R, Karki A, Pradhan HK, Bhattachan K, et al. Outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation of the vault during repair of pelvic organ prolapse. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2018;16(3):321–4. https://doi.org/10.3126/jnhrc.v16i3.21431.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, Connolly A, Cundiff G, Weber AM, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(4):805–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000139514.90897.07.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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(2 Pt 1):367–73. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195888d.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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(5):470.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h3717.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1803–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2171-2.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262760.pdf.

The Therapeutic Goods Administration, Australian Government. Urogynaecological (transvaginal) surgical mesh hub. 2017. https://www.tga.gov.au/hubs/transvaginal-mesh.

National Heart Lung and blood institute, National Institutes of Health. Study Quality Assessment Tools 2020. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools.

Geller EJ, Parnell BA, Dunivan GC. Robotic vs abdominal sacrocolpopexy: 44-month pelvic floor outcomes. Urology. 2012;79(3):532–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2011.11.025.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(5):435.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.035.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Costantini E, Mearini L, Lazzeri M, Bini V, Nunzi E, di Biase M, et al. Laparoscopic versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. J Urol. 2016;196(1):159–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.12.089.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McDermott CD, Park J, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. Surgical outcomes of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy related to body mass index. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2012;34(1):47–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35133-7.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nosti PA, Umoh AU, Kane S, White DE, Harvie HS, Lowenstein L, et al. Outcomes of abdominal and minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a retrospective cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(1):33–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000036.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, Rumolo V, Caramazza D, Lombisani A, et al. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colopopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(2):359–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04865-0. Advance online publication.

Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):2069–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04260-1.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Okcu NT, Gürbüz T, Uysal G. Comparison of patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation, laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy and abdominal hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy in terms of postoperative quality of life and sexual function. J Gynecol Obstet Human Reprod. 2021;50(4):101977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101977.

Article  Google Scholar 

Bastawros DA, Tarr ME, Templin MA, Stepp KJ, Taylor GB, Myers EM. Anterior wall success at 1 year after vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension and sacral colpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(10):612–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000647.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Smith BC, Crisp CC, Kleeman SD, Yook E, Pauls RN. Uterosacral ligament suspension versus robotic sacrocolpopexy for treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(2):93–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000704.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Davidson E, Casas-Puig V, Paraiso M, Ridgeway B, Ferrando CA. Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and patient-centered outcomes following minimally invasive abdominal uterosacral ligament and mesh-augmented sacrohysteropexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(12):763–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000710.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

van Ijsselmuiden MN, van Oudheusden A, Veen J, van de Pol G, Vollebregt A, Radder CM, et al. Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus sacrospinous hysteropexy—a multicentre randomised controlled trial (LAVA trial). BJOG. 2020;127(10):1284–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16242.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, Rardin CR, Komesu Y, Harvie HS, et al. National institute of child health and human DEvelopment Pelvic floor disorders network. 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. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021;225(2):153.e1–153.e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.012.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, Rardin CR, Rogers RG, Harvie HS, et al. NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Effect of vaginal mesh hysteropexy vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322(11):1054–65. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.12812.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Milani R, Manodoro S, Cola A, Bellante N, Palmieri S, Frigerio M. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy versus hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(9):1867–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04206-2.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Schulten S, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven H. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ. 2019;366:l5149. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5149

Topdagi Yilmaz EP, Yapca OE, Topdagi YE, Atakan Al R, Kumtepe Y. Comparison of two natural tissue repair-based surgical techniques; sacrospinous fixation and uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse treatment. J Gynecol Obstet Human Reprod. 2021;50(4):101905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2020.101905.

Article  Google Scholar 

Chen Y, Hua K. Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy or sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation for middle compartment prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;137(2):164–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12097.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Noor N, Bastawros D, Florian-Rodriguez ME, Hobson D, Eto C, Lozo S, et al. Comparing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy with vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: a multicenter retrospective cohort study through the Fellows' Pelvic Research Network. Urogynecology (Hagerstown). 2022;28(10):687–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001226.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Izett-Kay ML, Rahmanou P, Cartwright RJ, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33:1957–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Miller BJ, Seman EI, O'Shea RT, Hakendorf PH, Nguyen T. Recent trends in the management of pelvic organ prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;59(1):117–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12835.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG. Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31818ce394.

Article  PubMed