Long-Term Outcome of Anterior-Apical Mesh (Surelift) Versus Anterior Colporrhaphy and Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery. - National Genomics Data Center (CNCB-NGDC)

Advanced Search

Long-Term Outcome of Anterior-Apical Mesh (Surelift) Versus Anterior Colporrhaphy and Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation in Advanced Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.

Tsia-Shu Lo, Louiza Erika Rellora, Eyal Rom, Huan-Ka Chiung, Chia-Hsuan Yang, Yi-Hao Lin

Author Information

Tsia-Shu Lo: Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linkou, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, 5, Fu-Hsin Street, Kwei-Shan, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, 333. 2378@cgmh.org.tw. ORCID
Louiza Erika Rellora: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ospital Ng Lipa, City of Lipa, Philippines.
Eyal Rom: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Laniado Hospital, Netanya, Israel.
Huan-Ka Chiung: Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linkou, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, 5, Fu-Hsin Street, Kwei-Shan, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, 333.
Chia-Hsuan Yang: Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linkou, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, 5, Fu-Hsin Street, Kwei-Shan, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, 333.
Yi-Hao Lin: Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Linkou, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Linkou Medical Center, 5, Fu-Hsin Street, Kwei-Shan, Taoyuan City, Taiwan, 333.

PMID: 40088265 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-025-06105-1

OBJECTIVE: This study first aims to compare the outcomes of Surelift (anterior-apical transvaginal mesh) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSF) with anterior repair using objective and subjective cure rates. Second, to compare the quality of life and its major and minor complications.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted between December 2011 and January 2020. patients with symptomatic stage��3 anterior or apical prolapse were included. Those who had prior POP mesh and who were unfit for surgery were excluded. Preoperative evaluation included history and physical exam, urodynamic studies, and validated questionnaires (IIQ-7, UDI-6, POPDI-6) at baseline, 1, 3, and 5 years later.
RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one patients were included: 98 underwent anterior-apical transvaginal mesh and 83 had SSF with anterior colporrhaphy (SSF+A). Anterior-apical transvaginal mesh and SSF+A patients had mean follow-up periods of 83.5��6.1 and 91.6��39 months, respectively. At 1 year, no statistically significant difference was noted in objective and subjective cure rates between anterior-apical transvaginal mesh (96.8% and 94.7%) and SSF+A (89.9% and 88.6%). However, after 3 and 5 years, anterior-apical transvaginal mesh showed superior results with objective cure rates of 94.1% and 89.1%, respectively, compared to 80% and 64.4% for SSF+A (p��=��0.008). At 3 and 5 years, anterior-apical transvaginal mesh had 92.9% and 85.9% subjective cure rates compared to SSF's 77.1% and 60%, respectively (p��=��0.005).
CONCLUSIONS: The long-term follow-up showed that native tissue repair was strongly associated with increased risk of recurrence compared to the anterior-apical mesh with minor complications in both groups.

Anterior repair Anterior-apical repair Long-term Pelvic organ prolapse Sacrospinous ligament fixation Surelift Transvaginal mesh

Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783��90. [DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9]
Wang B, Chen Y, Zhu X, et al. Global burden and trends of pelvic organ prolapse associated with aging women: an observational trend study from 1990 to 2019. Front Public Health. 2022;10:975829. [DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.975829]
Machin SE, Mukhopadhyay S. Pelvic organ prolapse: review of the aetiology, presentation, diagnosis and management. Menopause Int. 2011;17(4):132��6. [DOI: 10.1258/mi.2011.011108]
Weintraub AY, Glinter H, Marcus-Braun N. Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Braz J Urol. 2020;46(1):5��14. [DOI: 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2018.0581]
Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn. 2010;29(1):4��20. [DOI: 10.1002/nau.20798]
Tan YL, Lo TS, Khanuengkitkong S, Dass AK. Comparison of outcomes after vaginal reconstruction surgery between elderly and younger women. Taiwanese J Obstet Gynecol Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;53(3):348��54. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tjog.2013.08.004]
Lo TS, Pue LB, Tan YL, Wu PY. Long-term outcomes of synthetic transobturator nonabsorbable anterior mesh versus anterior colporrhaphy in symptomatic, advanced pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(2):257��64. [DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2200-1]
Larkin HD. Final results for study of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2022;328(21):2101��2. [PMID: 36472611]
Lo TS, Ng KL, Huang TX, Chen YP, Lin YH, Hsieh WC. Anterior-apical transvaginal mesh (Surelift) for advanced urogenital prolapse: surgical and functional outcomes at 1 year. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(5):1138��44.
Lo TS, Harun F, Jhang LS, Hsieh WC, Tan YL, Alzabedi A. Modified surelift anterior-apical transvaginal mesh for advanced urogenital prolapse: surgical, functional and sonographic outcomes at 3 years. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2025;304:1��8. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2024.11.009]
Lo TS, Uy-Patrimonio MC, Hsieh WC, Yang JC, Huang SH, Chua S. Sacrospinous ligament fixation for hysteropexy: does concomitant anterior and posterior fixation improve surgical outcome? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):811��9. [DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3487-0]
Schulten SFM, Claas-Quax MJ, Weemhoff M, et al. Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;227(2):192��208. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.04.046]
Kahn B, Varner RE, Murphy M, et al. Transvaginal mesh compared with native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;139(6):975��85. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004794 . [DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004794]
Liu LN, Liu XN, Liu C, Yao MY, Xu HX. Transperineal pelvic floor ultrasound for analyzing the outcomes of pelvic floor surgery for the treatment of anterior compartment prolapse: a comparative study of transvaginal mesh and native-tissue repair. Low Urin Tract Symptoms. 2021;13(4):456��62. https://doi.org/10.1111/luts.12392 . [DOI: 10.1111/luts.12392]
Shi W, Guo L. Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse: a meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2023;43(1):82��90. [DOI: 10.1080/01443615.2022.2160929]
Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, et al. 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 . [DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.03.012]
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA executive summary 2019: Surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse in the anterior vaginal compartment. Obstetrics and gynecology devices panel. Food and Drug Administration, Maryland. 2019.
Mangir N, AldemirDikici B, Chapple CR, MacNeil S. Landmarks in vaginal mesh development: polypropylene mesh for treatment of SUI and POP. Nat Rev Urol. 2019;16:675��89. [DOI: 10.1038/s41585-019-0230-2]
Lo TS, Lin YH, Chua S, Chu HC, Uy-Patrimonio MC, Ng KL. Immunochemical analysis on polypropylene mesh: does mesh size make a difference? Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(1):47��55. [DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04399-x]
All��gre L, Callewaert G, Alonso S, Cornille A, Fernandez H, Eglin G, de Tayrac R. Long-term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing trans-obturator vaginal mesh with native tissue repair in the treatment of anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(4):745��53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04073-x . [DOI: 10.1007/s00192-019-04073-x]
Goldberg RP, Tomezsko JE, Winkler HA, Koduri S, Culligan PJ, Sand PK. Anterior or posterior sacrospinous vaginal vault suspension: long-term anatomic and functional evaluation. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(2):199��204. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01446-6 . [DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01446-6]
Bastani P, Tayebi S, Ghabousian A, Salehi-Pourmehr H, Hajebrahimi S. Outcomes of the anterior approach versus posterior sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(7):1857��62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05171-z . [DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05171-z]
Vigna A, Barba M, Frigerio M. Long-term outcomes (10 years) of sacrospinous ligament fixation for pelvic organ prolapse repair. Healthcare (Basel). 2024;12(16):1611. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12161611 . [DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12161611]
Wang R, Hacker MR, Richardson M. Cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment pathways for prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(2):e408��13. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000948 . [DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000948]
Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery, Neurourol Urodyn. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.21036 .

Journal Article

No available data.