Next Article in Journal
Eryptosis in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Possible Relationship with Oxidative Stress and Inflammatory Markers
Next Article in Special Issue
Minimal Invasive Abdominal Sacral Colpopexy and Abdominal Lateral Suspension: A Prospective, Open-Label, Multicenter, Non-Inferiority Trial
Previous Article in Journal
Biopsychosocial Response to the COVID-19 Lockdown in People with Major Depressive Disorder and Multiple Sclerosis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Analysis of the Structural Characteristics and Psychometric Properties of the Pelvic Floor Bother Questionnaire (PFBQ): A Systematic Review
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Quality of Life Following Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatments in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

1
Vali-E-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center, Family Health Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran 1417613151, Iran
2
Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj 3149969415, Iran
3
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fertility Infertility and Perinatology Research Center, School of Medicine, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz 6135715794, Iran
4
Health Metric Research Center, Iranian Institute for Health Sciences Research, ACECR, Tehran 1983963113, Iran
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(23), 7166; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237166
Submission received: 16 October 2022 / Revised: 21 November 2022 / Accepted: 25 November 2022 / Published: 1 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery)

Abstract

:
Introduction: Quality of life (QoL) improvement is one of the main outcomes in the management of pelvic organ prolapse as a chronic illness in women. This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of surgical or pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) on quality of life. Methods: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was applied. Electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were searched for original articles that evaluated the QoL before and after surgical interventions or pessary in pelvic organ prolapse from 1 January 2012 until 30 June 2022 with a combination of proper keywords. Included studies were categorized based on interventions, and they were tabulated to summarize the results. Results: Overall, 587 citations were retrieved. Of these, 76 articles were found eligible for final review. Overall, three categories of intervention were identified: vaginal surgeries (47 studies), abdominal surgeries (18 studies), and pessary intervention (11 studies). Almost all interventions were associated with improved quality of life. The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant association between the employment of surgical approach techniques (including vaginal and abdominal surgeries) and the quality of life (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) (MD: −48.08, 95% CI: −62.34 to −33.77, p-value < 0.01), Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) (MD: −33.41, 95% CI: −43.48 to −23.34, p < 0.01)) and sexual activity of patients with pelvic organ prolapse (Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) (MD: 4.84, 95% CI: 1.75 to 7.92, p < 0.01)). Furthermore, narrative synthesis for studies investigating the effect of the pessary approach showed a positive association between the use of this instrument and improvement in the quality of life and sexual activity. Conclusions: The results of our study revealed a significant improvement in the women’s quality of life following abdominal and vaginal reconstructive surgery. The use of pessary was also associated with increased patient quality of life.

1. Introduction

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) occurs due to weakness of the supportive tissues of the pelvic organs, which may lead to prolapse of the anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall, the uterus (cervix), or the apex of the vagina (vaginal vault or cuff scar after hysterectomy) [1]. The prevalence of POP is currently increasing due to extended life expectancies and childbearing in low-resource areas [2]. Pelvic prolapses are not always symptomatic and can lead to discomfort in the vagina and changes in bladder and bowel function that can greatly affect women’s quality of life [3], with general, social, psychological, and sexual impacts [4]. Therefore, improving the quality of life is one of the main outcomes in the management of pelvic organ prolapse in women [5].
Surgical interventions for POP include repairing with native tissue or mesh and minimally invasive surgeries such as laparoscopic or robotic techniques, which are increasing in popularity [6]. The selection of the intervention depends on several factors, such as the site and severity of the POP; additional symptoms that affect urinary, bowel, or sexual function; the wish to preserve the uterus; and the surgeon’s choice and ability. Surgical treatment options include vaginal or abdominal (laparotomy, laparoscopy, and, more recently, robotic approach) [7]. There are also conservative interventions, which are defined as non-surgical methods such as optimizing lifestyle (weight loss and avoiding heavy lifting or coughing) and physical therapies [8]. In the last decades, pessaries, which have existed since the beginning of recorded history, have also been used in women with POP [9]. These are removable devices that provide support after prolapse [9]. Various instruments have been designed to assess the quality of life (QoL). Some of them evaluate the general aspect, whereas others, such as the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI-6) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire (POPIQ-7), are specific for POP [10,11]. Some questionnaires are dedicated to the quality of sex life [12].
QoL studies for POP are very diverse, with different methods, instruments, and follow-ups. Therefore, studies that summarize the results and provide final recommendations are scarce. Performing a systematic review is the best way to summarize the effects of POP treatment on QoL. A similar study was performed in 2012 by Doaee et al. that examined articles over the past ten years [13]. Due to the advances in urogynecological surgery and other interventional methods such as pessaries, updating this data seems necessary. The current study aims to review those studies that have focused on changing the QoL by means of surgery or pessary for POP management.

2. Methods

The current systematic review was designed to review QoL in women before and after surgery or pessary intervention for POP management in English biomedical journals. The study is reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [14].

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) study design: all original articles including randomized clinical trials, observational studies (cross-sectional, case-control, or cohort), and editorials/letters; (2) patient population and intervention: adult women with POP who received surgical treatments or pessary intervention for POP management; and (3) outcome: evaluated quality of life using available questionnaires. Review articles, opinions or guidelines, conference abstracts, non-peer-reviewed papers, case reports, unpublished reports, and articles in which the date and location of the study were not specified were excluded.

2.2. Information Sources

The initial search was undertaken in three main databases including articles published in MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science from 1 January 2012 until 31 June 2022. Additionally, a manual search in the reference section of the relevant studies was done to obtain possible publications that were missed in our electronic search.

2.3. Search Strategy

To retrieve citations on the topic based on the medical subject heading (Mesh), a combination of the following keywords was used: ‘pelvic organ prolapses’, ‘quality of life’, and ‘treatment’. The study time frame was also applied to all databases. A full search strategy for each database is available in the Supplementary Materials.

2.4. Study Selection

Titles and abstracts were independently reviewed for eligibility by three authors (PJ, RH, and SP), and non-relevant or duplicate studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded. In cases of disagreement, the problem was resolved by discussion and the main author (ZG.). After initial screening, the full texts of the articles were reviewed, and the unrelated articles were removed.

2.5. Quality Assessment

NS and AS independently assessed the quality of the included studies using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) tools [15]. Based on the design of a study (whether a randomized controlled trial or a cohort), an individual checklist that contains 14 signaling questions for assessing the quality of each study was used. Briefly, studies scoring nine or more “Yes” answers were marked as “Good”, studies scoring between seven or eight were marked as “Fair”, and studies rating less than seven were marked as “Poor” quality.

2.6. Data Extraction

The data—including the first author, publication date and study design, intervention mode, using mesh or native tissue, sample size, stage of prolapse and prolapse type, main findings, and the instrument used to measure the QoL, as well as the follow-up duration and quality of papers—were extracted and tabulated.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

We used the mean difference (MD) of the total quality of life questionnaire values before and after the intervention. Using a random effect model, the quantitative values of each study were pooled separately. If the MD was not given in the specific study, an estimate was made using Excel calculators [16]. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) were used as the main measures for pooling the results of the studies regarding the QoL of patients. Furthermore, the PISQ and FSFI questionnaires were used to pool the data regarding the sexual activity of patients after the intervention. We used Cochran’s Q statistic (Q-test) and the I2 to assess heterogeneity. I2 value >75% indicated a high amount of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by visual inspection of the funnel plot, and Egger’s test with a significance level of 0.05 was used to evaluate the publication bias. All analyses were statistically significant with a p-value < 0.05. The analyses were performed using R-4.1.3 software and the Meta package (R Core Team, Vienna, Austria; available at https://www.R-project.org/, accessed on 6 January 2022).

2.8. Registration Statement

We have written the protocol of this study, but due to the high diversity of studies and quality of life assessment methods, we did not register it due to the high possibility of changes in the protocol

3. Results

3.1. Statistics

Overall, 587 citations were found to be eligible. After excluding 435 duplicates, 122 studies were screened by the title and abstract. By excluding 21 citations, 100 full text articles were reviewed, and 76 articles were finally eligible for final evaluations. The flowchart of the study is depicted in Figure 1.

3.2. Instrument Used

A wide variety of questionnaires were used to measure patient-reported outcomes, including QoL measures. Of these, some were the general measures, and several instruments were pelvic-specific QoL questionnaires. Some instruments are used for measuring sexual QoL in sexually active women. The most common general instruments were the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), while the pelvic-specific measures were the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-20 (PFDI- 20), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12), Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL), and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7). The Sexual QoL was measured by the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). The questionnaires are listed in Table 1.

3.3. General Findings

To facilitate reporting the results, papers were classified into three categories: vaginal surgeries (47 articles), abdominal surgeries (18 articles), and pessary interventions (11 articles). These are categorized in Figure 2.

3.3.1. Vaginal Surgeries

There were two main procedures for vaginal surgeries: reconstructive (in two subgroups, including repair with natural tissue [17,19,20,23,24,31,36,37,38,60,61,63,64,65,66] (Table 2) and repair with mesh [7,9,12,21,25,26,29,32,35,39,40,41,42,43,44,55,62,67,68,69,78,82,83,85]) (Table 3) and obliterative surgeries [18,27,60,71,72,73,86] (Table 4). In one study, obliterative surgery and sacrospinous fixation in older postmenopausal women were compared, and the QoL was better in the sacrospinous group [18]. These results are the opposite of another article with the same method and population that showed that obliterative surgery versus reconstructive acted better in improving the QoL [28,72,79].
Overall, 60.5% (23/38) of the reconstructive studies used mesh for repairing. In a recent study, transvaginal mesh surgery and laparoscopic mesh sacropexy had similar results [9]. In addition, in one cohort study, QoL was measured after POP surgery with or without mesh and did not differentiate between individuals with and without mesh [31]. All studies investigated the QoL in the first surgery, except one, which evaluated the transvaginal bilateral sacrospinous fixation after the second recurrence of vaginal vault prolapse, which improved the QoL and sexual function [61].

3.3.2. Abdominal Surgeries

Overall, eight [33,47,48,56,74,75,76,87] and two studies [53,54] were dedicated to just laparoscopic or robotic approaches, respectively (Table 5). Four citations compared vaginal-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension for advanced uterine prolapse, which has similar results [45,49,50,55]. Another study compared two methods of laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy, and the results had no difference [51]. One study compared robotic and vaginal sacropexy with comparable results, and in one study, three methods were compared [46].
Only one study was on laparotomy [77], and another citation evaluated the difference between vaginal (using native tissue or with a mesh prolapse) and abdominal (open or robotic abdominal sacrocolpopexy), with results in favor of the abdominal group [78].

3.3.3. Pessary Intervention

Three studies compared pessary and surgery [79,80,81] (Table 6). In one, the women who underwent surgery had better QoL [84], whereas in other studies, the QoL after two interventions had no differences. All studies used ring pessaries [28,77], except three citations that used Gellhorn/cube pessaries [58,59,89].

3.4. Overall Findings and Meta-Analysis

Almost all interventions, including surgery and pessary interventions, were associated with improved quality of life. In cases where two different surgical or surgical and pessary methods were compared, the results were inconsistent.
Among the included studies, fifteen studies used the PFDI questionnaire to estimate the QoL [9,31,33,36,37,40,41,42,45,47,51,52,55,56]. The pooled results showed a significant improvement in QoL after surgical interventions (MD: −48.06, 95% CI: −62.34 to −33.77, I2: 97%, p < 0.01) (Figure 3). Visual inspection of the funnel plot and results of Egger’s test for funnel plot asymmetry (p = 0.17) indicated no possible source of publication bias (Figure 4).
Eleven studies used the PFIQ questionnaire to estimate the QoL [9,36,37,40,42,43,45,51,55,56]. The pooled results showed a significant improvement in QoL after surgical interventions (MD: −33.41, 95% CI: −43.48 to −23.34, I2: 99%, p < 0.01) (Figure 5). Visual inspection of the funnel plot and results of Egger’s test for funnel plot asymmetry (p = 0.52) indicated no possible source of publication bias (Figure 6).
For estimating the effect of surgical intervention on sexual activity, 14 studies were included [9,12,20,24,37,39,42,43,55,56,61,75,76,85]. Among them, 10 studies used the PISQ questionnaire. The pooled results showed a significant improvement in sexual function after surgical interventions (MD: 4.84, 95% CI: 1.75 to 7.92, I2: 98%, p < 0.01) (Figure 7). Visual inspection of the funnel plot and results of Egger’s test for funnel plot asymmetry (p = 0.01) indicated a possible source of publication bias (Figure 8).

4. Discussion

In this systematic review, we found that the QoL was significantly improved in women after surgical or pessary interventions for the management of POP. We performed a meta-analysis of QoL and sexual activity questionnaires. The results of the meta-analysis showed a significant association between surgical approach techniques (including vaginal and abdominal surgeries) and improved QoL and sexual activity of patients with POP. Due to vast heterogeneity in the pessary approach and QoL questionnaires used, we were not able to pool the results of studies regarding pessary. However, descriptive analysis showed an improved quality of life in these patients.
Interventional and observational studies dedicated to POP surgeries or using pessaries have grown significantly in the last decade [90,91]. On the other hand, with the emergence of specialized QoL questionnaires for pelvic organ prolapse and its symptoms, we encounter a significant amount of data concerning QoL in different methods [92].
As mentioned before, we divided the studies into three parts based on the intervention approach. In vaginal studies, we also dealt with reconstructive and obliterative methods. Increasing numbers of elderly women and their co-morbidities have increased the preference for obliterative vaginal surgery, due to high levels of durability with lower rates of morbidity. Obliterative methods seem to be a good method for older women who are not sexually active and could not tolerate major surgeries with good durability and relative ease of surgery [90,93]. Few studies evaluated the QoL of patients following obliterative methods. The results of these surgeries were satisfactory, and in two studies that were compared with other methods, the results were contradictory [18,72].
Reconstructive methods using synthetic meshes for pelvic organ prolapse and/or stress urinary incontinence have been popular since the mid-1990s [50]. Mesh repairs were effective as traditional repairs [81] and improve QoL [26]. Patients may benefit from anatomical stability when the risks are justifiable [7], with a low rate of recurrence and few complications [7]. However, reports of mesh-related complications are increasing [7,90], and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently warned about using transvaginal mesh due to adverse events including vaginal erosion, dyspareunia, pain, and infection [57,92]. However, there is no consensus in this regard, and the use of mesh is recommended by some experts.
With regard to abdominal approaches, three different approaches were evaluated in the studies. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy and sacrohysteropexy have been demonstrated to be effective and safe with faster recovery time, shorter operating time, lower blood loss, lower scar tissue, lower pain, and minimally invasive nature compared to the abdominal approaches [94]. However, these procedures have been associated with some complications, such as stress urinary incontinence [95], defecation problems [96], and injuries of the presacral venous plexus [97]. On the other hand, robotic surgeries have recently been introduced with good results and improvement in QoL. A systematic review and meta-analysis showed less intraoperative bleeding, lower incidence of postoperative complications, and shorter hospital stay for RVMR compared with LVMR, but found no differences in rates of recurrence, conversion, or reoperation [98].
Finally, the vaginal pessary is a conservative treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and can be offered as the first-line treatment in most patients [99]. Non-surgical modalities such as pessary are the best choice for older women because most of them have some type of cardiovascular disease [100] or diabetes mellitus [101]. Among various vaginal pessaries, the ring pessary is the most common type because it is convenient to insert and remove and has acceptable continuation rate and manageable adverse events. In addition, a ring with support pessary is a safe and effective conservative treatment for POP; it not only relieves bothersome prolapse and urinary symptoms but also significantly decreases their impacts on health-related QoL. One-quarter of the patients discontinued using pessary mainly due to dissatisfaction with pessary effectiveness or adverse events such as vaginal discharge or vaginal erosion [102]. Some women also prefer surgery after a while. Pessary treatment is continued beyond 12 months after initial placement by 63% of patients [34]. Comparative studies between pessary and surgery are not numerous, and their results are contradictory. In one study, women had the same quality of life [80], while in another study, women who underwent surgery reported a better QoL than pessary users [34].
In this study, we also had some limitations. First, due to the differences in the questionnaires used, variation in follow-up duration, and different methods of surgery, there was a significant amount of heterogeneity in the results of our meta-analysis. Furthermore, we only investigate a limited number of questionnaires available for assessing QoL patients with POP in our quantitative synthesis. However, it is worth noting that the results of other questionnaires were in line with our meta-analysis, which showed improved QoL of these patients after the aforementioned approaches were used. The conclusions of the meta-analysis were made mostly from the results of a limited number of observational studies, which lowers the certainty of evidence because of their observational nature. However, the results of almost all studies included in this systematic review were in line with our findings. Pelvic floor surgeries are relatively new and have made great strides in the last decade. It is suggested that, in future studies, the methods used with mesh be analyzed in a more specialized way.

5. Conclusions

QoL is significantly improved in women after surgical or pessary interventions for management of POP. Due to the daily progress of urogynecological and modern technologies in surgery and less invasive treatments, long-term cohort studies are recommended to evaluate the QoL in these people.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11237166/s1.

Author Contributions

A.M. and Z.G.: design of the work. M.G. and A.S.: drafting the manuscript. R.S.H., S.P. and P.J.: manuscript editing, interpretation of data. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data is available due to request.

Acknowledgments

We thank the personnel of Vali-E-Asr Reproductive Health Research Center for their kind help. The protocol of this study was registered with the review board of Tehran University of Medical Sciences.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Haylen, B.T.; de Ridder, D.; Freeman, R.M.; Swift, S.E.; Berghmans, B.; Lee, J.; Monga, A.; Petri, E.; Rizk, D.E.; Sand, P.K.; et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2010, 21, 5–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hagen, S.; Stark, D.; Glazener, C.; Sinclair, L.; Ramsay, I. A randomized controlled trial of pelvic floor muscle training for stages I and II pelvic organ prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic. Floor. Dysfunct. 2009, 20, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Smith, D.A. Pelvic organ prolapse. A new option offers effectiveness and ease of use. Adv. Nurse Pract. 2007, 15, 39–42. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wagner, T.H.; Hu, T.W. Economic costs of urinary incontinence in 1995. Urology 1998, 51, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Natale, F.; La Penna, C.; Padoa, A.; Agostini, M.; Panei, M.; Cervigni, M. High levator myorraphy versus uterosacral ligament suspension for vaginal vault fixation: A prospective, randomized study. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2010, 21, 515–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ko, K.J.; Lee, K.S. Current surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: Strategies for the improvement of surgical outcomes. Investig. Clin. Urol. 2019, 60, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cadenbach-Blome, T.; Grebe, M.; Mengel, M.; Pauli, F.; Greser, A.; Funfgeld, C. Significant Improvement in Quality of Life, Positive Effect on Sexuality, Lasting Reconstructive Result and Low Rate of Complications Following Cystocele Correction Using a Lightweight, Large-Pore, Titanised Polypropylene Mesh: Final Results of a National, Multicentre Observational Study. Geburtshilfe. Frauenheilkd. 2019, 79, 959–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Haylen, B.T.; Maher, C.F.; Barber, M.D.; Camargo, S.; Dandolu, V.; Digesu, A.; Goldman, H.B.; Huser, M.; Milani, A.L.; Moran, P.A.; et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int. Urogynecol. J. 2016, 27, 165–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lucot, J.P.; Cosson, M.; Verdun, S.; Debodinance, P.; Bader, G.; Campagne-Loiseau, S.; Salet-Lizee, D.; Akladios, C.; Ferry, P.; De Tayrac, R.; et al. Long-term outcomes of primary cystocele repair by transvaginal mesh surgery versus laparoscopic mesh sacropexy: Extended follow up of the PROSPERE multicentre randomised trial. BJOG 2022, 129, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hendrix, S.L.; Clark, A.; Nygaard, I.; Aragaki, A.; Barnabei, V.; McTiernan, A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: Gravity and gravidity. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2002, 186, 1160–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Barber, M.D.; Walters, M.D.; Bump, R.C. Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2005, 193, 103–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kinjo, M.; Yoshimura, Y.; Kitagawa, Y.; Okegawa, T.; Nutahara, K. Sexual activity and quality of life in Japanese pelvic organ prolapse patients after transvaginal mesh surgery. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2018, 44, 1302–1307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Doaee, M.; Moradi-Lakeh, M.; Nourmohammadi, A.; Razavi-Ratki, S.K.; Nojomi, M. Management of pelvic organ prolapse and quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2014, 25, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies [Internet]. Available online: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed on 15 October 2022).
  16. Sharma, R.; Iovine, C.; Agarwal, A.; Henkel, R. TUNEL assay-Standardized method for testing sperm DNA fragmentation. Andrologia 2021, 53, e13738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dhital, R.; Otsuka, K.; Poudel, K.C.; Yasuoka, J.; Dangal, G.; Jimba, M. Improved quality of life after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in Nepalese women. BMC Women’s Health 2013, 13, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Farghali, M.M.; Abdelzaher, A.; Abdelazim, I.A. Surgical and quality of life outcomes after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in older postmenopausal women. Menopause Rev. Przegląd Menopauzalny 2021, 20, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kayondo, M.; Kaye, D.K.; Migisha, R.; Tugume, R.; Kato, P.K.; Lugobe, H.M.; Geissbuehler, V. Impact of surgery on quality of life of Ugandan women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: A prospective cohort study. BMC Women’s Health 2021, 21, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Rodrigues, A.; Rodrigues, C.; Negrao, L.; Afreixo, V.; Castro, M.G. Female sexual function and quality of life after pelvic floor surgery: A prospective observational study. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2021, 32, 1273–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hefni, M.; Barry, J.A.; Koukoura, O.; Meredith, J.; Mossa, M.; Edmonds, S. Long-term quality of life and patient satisfaction following anterior vaginal mesh repair for cystocele. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2013, 287, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mendes, L.C.; Bezerra, L.; Bilhar, A.P.M.; Neto, J.A.V.; Vasconcelos, C.T.M.; Saboia, D.M.; Karbage, S.A.L. Symptomatic and anatomic improvement of pelvic organ prolapse in vaginal pessary users. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2021, 32, 1023–1029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Belayneh, T.; Gebeyehu, A.; Adefris, M.; Rortveit, G.; Gjerde, J.L.; Ayele, T.A. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and health-related quality of life: A follow-up study. BMC. Womens. Health 2021, 21, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Yalcin, Y.; Demir Caltekin, M.; Eris Yalcin, S. Quality of life and sexuality after bilateral sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy for treatment of primary pelvic organ prolapse. LUTS Low. Urin. Tract Symptoms 2020, 12, 206–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sukgen, G.; Turkay, U. Effect of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Reconstructive Mesh Surgery on the Quality of Life of Turkish Patients: A Prospective Study. Gynecol. Minim. Invasive Ther. 2020, 9, 204–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Bartuzi, A.; Futyma, K.; Kulik-Rechberger, B.; Rechberger, T. Self-perceived quality of life after pelvic organ prolapse reconstructive mesh surgery: Prospective study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2013, 169, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Agacayak, E.; Bulut, M.; Peker, N.; Gunduz, R.; Tunc, S.Y.; Evsen, M.S.; Gul, T. Comparison of long-term results of obliterative colpocleisis and reconstructive vaginal surgery including sacrospinous ligament fixation in patients with total genital prolapse. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2022, 25, 597–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Coelho, S.C.A.; Marangoni-Junior, M.; Brito, L.G.O.; Castro, E.B.; Juliato, C.R.T. Quality of life and vaginal symptoms of postmenopausal women using pessary for pelvic organ prolapse: A prospective study. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras. (1992) 2018, 64, 1103–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Nakai, K.; Hamuro, A.; Kitada, K.; Tahara, M.; Misugi, T.; Nakano, A.; Koyama, M.; Tachibana, D. Preliminary evaluation of the short-term outcomes of polytetrafluoroethylene mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2021, 47, 2529–2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Zeiger, B.B.; da Silva Carramão, S.; Del Roy, C.A.; da Silva, T.T.; Hwang, S.M.; Auge, A.P.F. Vaginal pessary in advanced pelvic organ prolapse: Impact on quality of life. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2022, 33, 2013–2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mattsson, N.K.; Karjalainen, P.K.; Tolppanen, A.M.; Heikkinen, A.M.; Sintonen, H.; Harkki, P.; Nieminen, K.; Jalkanen, J. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and quality of life-a nationwide cohort study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020, 222, 581.e1–588.e10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Husch, T.; Mager, R.; Ober, E.; Bentler, R.; Ulm, K.; Haferkamp, A. Quality of life in women of non-reproductive age with transvaginal mesh repair for pelvic organ prolapse: A cohort study. Int. J. Surg. 2016, 33 Pt. A, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pizzoferrato, A.C.; Fermaut, M.; Varas, C.; Fauconnier, A.; Bader, G. Medium-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacropexy on symptoms and quality of life. Predict. Factors Postoper. Dissatisfact. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2019, 30, 2085–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Thys, S.; Hakvoort, R.; Milani, A.; Roovers, J.P.; Vollebregt, A. Can we predict continued pessary use as primary treatment in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (POP)? A prospective cohort study. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2021, 32, 2159–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zalewski, M.; Kołodyńska, G.; Mucha, A.; Bełza, Ł.; Nowak, K.; Andrzejewski, W. The assessment of quality of life and satisfaction with life of patients before and after surgery of an isolated apical defect using synthetic materials. BMC Urol. 2020, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Favre-Inhofer, A.; Carbonnel, M.; Murtada, R.; Revaux, A.; Asmar, J.; Ayoubi, J.M. Sacrospinous ligament fixation: Medium and long-term anatomical results, functional and quality of life results. BMC. Women’s Health 2021, 21, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Bedel, A.; AgostinI, A.; Netter, A.; Pivano, A.; Caroline, R.; Tourette, C. Midline rectovaginal fascial plication: Anatomical and functional outcomes at one year. J. Gynecol. Obstetr. Hum. Reprod. 2022, 51, 102327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Jelovsek, J.E.; Barber, M.D.; Brubaker, L.; Norton, P.; Gantz, M.; Richter, H.E.; Weidner, A.; Menefee, S.; Schaffer, J.; Pugh, N.; et al. Effect of Uterosacral Ligament Suspension vs Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation With or Without Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Pelvic Organ Vaginal Prolapse on Surgical Outcomes and Prolapse Symptoms at 5 Years in the OPTIMAL Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2018, 319, 1554–1565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Lo, T.S.; Ng, K.L.; Huang, T.X.; Chen, Y.P.; Lin, Y.H.; Hsieh, W.C. Anterior-Apical Transvaginal Mesh (Surelift) for Advanced Urogenital Prolapse: Surgical and Functional Outcomes at 1 Year. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2021, 28, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Chiang, C.H.; Hsu, C.S.; Ding, D.C. The Comparison of Outcomes of Transvaginal Mesh Surgery with and without Midline Fascial Plication for the Treatment of Anterior Vaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Altman, D.; Geale, K.; Falconer, C.; Morcos, E. A generic health-related quality of life instrument for assessing pelvic organ prolapse surgery: Correlation with condition-specific outcome measures. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2018, 29, 1093–1099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lamblin, G.; Gouttenoire, C.; Panel, L.; Moret, S.; Chene, G.; Courtieu, C. A retrospective comparison of two vaginal mesh kits in the management of anterior and apical vaginal prolapse: Long-term results for apical fixation and quality of life. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2016, 27, 1847–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Rahkola-Soisalo, P.; Altman, D.; Falconer, C.; Morcos, E.; Rudnicki, M.; Mikkola, T.S. Quality of life after Uphold Vaginal Support System surgery for apical pelvic organ prolapse-A prospective multicenter study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2017, 208, 86–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. El Haddad, R.; Svabik, K.; Masata, J.; Koleska, T.; Hubka, P.; Martan, A. Women’s quality of life and sexual function after transvaginal anterior repair with mesh insertion. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2013, 167, 110–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zhu, H.; Sun, Y.; Zheng, X. A comparison of modified laparoscopic uterine suspension and vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation for treating pelvic organ prolapse. Am. J. Transl. Res. 2021, 13, 5672–5678. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Van Zanten, F.; Lenters, E.; Broeders, I.A.M.J.; Schraffordt Koops, S.E. Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy: Not only for vaginal vault suspension? An observational cohort study. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Sliwa, J.; Kryza-Ottou, A.; Grobelak, J.; Domagala, Z.; Zimmer, M. Anterior abdominal fixation - a new option in the surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Ginekol. Pol. 2021, 92, 471–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Karslı, A.; Karslı, O.; Kale, A. Laparoscopic Pectopexy: An Effective Procedure for Pelvic Organ Prolapse with an Evident Improvement on Quality of Life. Prague Med. Rep. 2021, 122, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cengiz, H.; Yildiz, S.; Alay, I.; Kaya, C.; Eren, E.; Iliman, D. Vaginal-Assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension for advanced uterine prolapse: 12-month preliminary results of a randomized controlled study. Gynecol. Minim. Invasive Ther. 2021, 10, 30–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Okcu, N.T.; 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. Hum. Reprod. 2021, 50, 101977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Makela-Kaikkonen, J.; Rautio, T.; Ohinmaa, A.; Koivurova, S.; Ohtonen, P.; Sintonen, H.; Makela, J. Cost-analysis and quality of life after laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy for posterior compartment prolapse: A randomized trial. Technol. Coloproctol. 2019, 23, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Nguyen, L.N.; Gruner, M.; Killinger, K.A.; Peters, K.M.; Boura, J.A.; Jankowski, M.; Sirls, L.T. Additional treatments, satisfaction, symptoms and quality of life in women 1 year after vaginal and abdominal pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2018, 50, 1031–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Grimminck, K.; Mourik, S.L.; Tjin-Asjoe, F.; Martens, J.; Aktas, M. Long-term follow-up and quality of life after robot assisted sacrohysteropexy. Eur. J. Obstetr. Gynecol. Reproduct. Biol. 2016, 206, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Linder, B.J.; Chow, G.K.; Elliott, D.S. Long-term quality of life outcomes and retreatment rates after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Int. J. Urol. 2015, 22, 1155–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Thomin, A.; Touboul, C.; Hequet, D.; Zilberman, S.; Ballester, M.; Daraï, E. Genital prolapse repair with Avaulta Plus® mesh: Functional results and quality of life. Progres. En. Urologie. 2013, 23, 270–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Thibault, F.; Costa, P.; Thanigasalam, R.; Seni, G.; Brouzyine, M.; Cayzergues, L.; De Tayrac, R.; Droupy, S.; Wagner, L. Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy on symptoms, health-related quality of life and sexuality: A medium-term analysis. BJU Int. 2013, 112, 1143–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bradley, C.S.; Brown, H.W.; Shippey, S.S.; Gutman, R.E.; Andy, U.U.; Yurteri-Kaplan, L.A.; Kudish, B.; Mehr, A.; O’Boyle, A.; Foster, R.T., Sr.; et al. Generic Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients Seeking Care for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2021, 27, 337–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Yang, J.; Han, J.; Zhu, F.; Wang, Y. Ring and Gellhorn pessaries used in patients with pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective study of 8 years. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2018, 298, 623–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Tenfelde, S.; Tell, D.; Thomas, T.N.; Kenton, K. Quality of life in women who use pessaries for longer than 12 months. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2015, 21, 146–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Karaca, S.Y. The effect of reconstructive vaginal surgery on quality of life and sexual functions in postmenopausal women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse in intermediate-term follow-up. Post Reprod. Health 2021, 27, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Vitale, S.G.; Lagana, A.S.; Noventa, M.; Giampaolino, P.; Zizolfi, B.; Buttice, S.; La Rosa, V.L.; Gullo, G.; Rossetti, D. Transvaginal Bilateral Sacrospinous Fixation after Second Recurrence of Vaginal Vault Prolapse: Efficacy and Impact on Quality of Life and Sexuality. Biomed Res. Int. 2018, 2018, 5727165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Deltetto, F.; Favilli, A.; Buzzaccarini, G.; Vitagliano, A. Effectiveness and Safety of Posterior Vaginal Repair with Single-Incision, Ultralightweight, Monofilament Propylene Mesh: First Evidence from a Case Series with Short-Term Results. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 3204145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Derpapas, A.; Vijaya, G.; Nikolopoulos, K.; Nikolopoulos, M.; Robinson, D.; Fernando, R.; Khullar, V. The use of 3D ultrasound in comparing surgical techniques for posterior wall prolapse repair: A pilot randomised controlled trial. J. Obstetr. Gynaecol. 2021, 41, 594–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rechberger, E.; Skorupska, K.; Rechberger, T.; Wojtaś, M.; Miotła, P.; Kulik-rechberger, B.; Wróbel, A. The influence of vaginal native tissues pelvic floor reconstructive surgery in patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse on preexisting storage lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Klapdor, R.; Grosse, J.; Hertel, B.; Hillemanns, P.; Hertel, H. Postoperative anatomic and quality-of-life outcomes after vaginal sacrocolporectopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstetr. 2017, 137, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. De Oliveira, M.S.; Cavalcanti Gde, A.; da Costa, A.A. Fascial surgical repair for vaginal prolapse: Effect on quality of life and related symptoms. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2014, 182, 177–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Alt, C.D.; Benner, L.; Mokry, T.; Lenz, F.; Hallscheidt, P.; Sohn, C.; Kauczor, H.U.; Brocker, K.A. Five-year outcome after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: Evaluation using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging compared to clinical examination and quality-of-life questionnaire. Acta Radiol. 2018, 59, 1264–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Funfgeld, C.; Stehle, M.; Henne, B.; Kaufhold, J.; Watermann, D.; Grebe, M.; Mengel, M. Quality of Life, Sexuality, Anatomical Results and Side-effects of Implantation of an Alloplastic Mesh for Cystocele Correction at Follow-up after 36 Months. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2017, 77, 993–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Buca, D.I.; Leombroni, M.; Falo, E.; Bruno, M.; Santarelli, A.; Frondaroli, F.; Liberati, M.; Fanfani, F. A 2-Year Evaluation of Quality of Life Outcomes of Patients With Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treated With an Elevate Prolapse Repair System. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2016, 22, 410–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Farthmann, J.; Watermann, D.; Erbes, T.; Roth, K.; Nanovska, P.; Gitsch, G.; Gabriel, B. Functional outcome after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2015, 291, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ertas, I.E.; Balıkoğlu, M.; Biler, A. Le Fort colpocleisis: An evaluation of results and quality of life at intermediate-term follow-up. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2021, 50, 102069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Petcharopas, A.; Wongtra-Ngan, S.; Chinthakanan, O. Quality of life following vaginal reconstructive versus obliterative surgery for treating advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2018, 29, 1141–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Yeniel, A.O.; Ergenoglu, A.M.; Askar, N.; Itil, I.M.; Meseri, R. Quality of life scores improve in women undergoing colpocleisis: A pilot study. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2012, 163, 230–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Akbaba, E.; Sezgin, B. Modified laparoscopic lateral suspension with a five-arm mesh in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. BMC Women’s Health 2021, 21, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Obut, M.; Oglak, S.C.; Akgol, S. Comparison of the Quality of Life and Female Sexual Function Following Laparoscopic Pectopexy and Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy in Apical Prolapse Patients. Gynecol. Minim. Invasive Ther. 2021, 10, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Tahaoglu, A.E.; Bakir, M.S.; Peker, N.; Bagli, I.; Tayyar, A.T. Modified laparoscopic pectopexy: Short-term follow-up and its effects on sexual function and quality of life. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2018, 29, 1155–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Manchana, T.; Bunyavejchevin, S. Impact on quality of life after ring pessary use for pelvic organ prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2012, 23, 873–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Brocker, K.A.; Alt, C.D.; Rzepka, J.; Sohn, C.; Hallscheidt, P. One-year dynamic MRI follow-up after vaginal mesh repair: Evaluation of clinical, radiological, and quality-of-life results. Acta Radiol. 2015, 56, 1002–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yıldırım Karaca, S.; Ertaş, İ.E. Comparison of life quality between geriatric patients who underwent reconstructive surgery and obliterative surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Ginekol. Pol. 2021, 92, 695–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Lone, F.; Thakar, R.; Sultan, A.H. One-year prospective comparison of vaginal pessaries and surgery for pelvic organ prolapse using the validated ICIQ-VS and ICIQ-UI (SF) questionnaires. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2015, 26, 1305–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. D’Altilia, N.; Mancini, V.; Falagario, U.; Chirico, M.; Illiano, E.; Balzarro, M.; Annese, P.; Busetto, G.M.; Bettocchi, C.; Cormio, L.; et al. Are Two Meshes Better than One in Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse? Comparison of Single Anterior versus Anterior and Posterior Vaginal Mesh Procedures. Urol. Int. 2022, 106, 282–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Naumann, G.; Hüsch, T.; Mörgeli, C.; Kolterer, A.; Tunn, R. Mesh-augmented transvaginal repair of recurrent or complex anterior pelvic organ prolapse in accordance with the SCENIHR opinion. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2021, 32, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Yesil, A.; Watermann, D.; Farthmann, J. Mesh implantation for pelvic organ prolapse improves quality of life. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2014, 289, 817–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Carlin, G.L.; Morgenbesser, R.; Kimberger, O.; Umek, W.; Bodner, K.; Bodner-Adler, B. Does the choice of pelvic organ prolapse treatment influence subjective pelvic-floor related quality of life? Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 2021, 259, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Sukgen, G.; Altunkol, A.; Yiğit, A. Effects of mesh surgery on sexual function in pelvic prolapse and urinary incontinence. Int. Braz. J. Urol. 2021, 47, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Katsara, A.; Wight, E.; Heinzelmann-Schwarz, V.; Kavvadias, T. Long-term quality of life, satisfaction, pelvic floor symptoms and regret after colpocleisis. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2016, 294, 999–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bellido Luque, J.; Limón Padilla, J.; García Moreno, J.; Pascual Salvador, E.; Gomez Menchero, J.; Suarez Grau, J.M.; Guadalajara Jurado, J. Three years prospective clinical and radiologic follow-up of laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy. Surg. Endosc. 2021, 35, 5980–5990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Majkusiak, W.; Horosz, E.; Tomasik, P.; Zwierzchowska, A.; Wielgos, M.; Barcz, E. Quality of life assessment in women after cervicosacropexy with polypropylene mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: A preliminary study. Prz. Menopauz. 2015, 14, 126–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mao, M.; Ai, F.; Zhang, Y.; Kang, J.; Liang, S.; Xu, T.; Zhu, L. Changes in the symptoms and quality of life of women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse fitted with a ring with support pessary. Maturitas 2018, 117, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Raju, R.; Linder, B.J. Evaluation and Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Mayo. Clinic. Proceed. 2021, 96, 3122–3129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Mowat, A.; Maher, D.; Baessler, K.; Christmann-Schmid, C.; Haya, N.; Maher, C. Surgery for women with posterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2018, 3, Cd012975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Verbeek, M.; Hayward, L. Pelvic Floor Dysfunction And Its Effect On Quality Of Sexual Life. Sexual. Med. Rev. 2019, 7, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. López, G.; Lafuente, R.; Checa, M.A.; Carreras, R.; Brassesco, M. Diagnostic value of sperm DNA fragmentation and sperm high-magnification for predicting outcome of assisted reproduction treatment. Asian. J. Androl. 2013, 15, 790–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  94. Noe, K.G.; Spuntrup, C.; Anapolski, M. Laparoscopic pectopexy: A randomised comparative clinical trial of standard laparoscopic sacral colpo-cervicopexy to the new laparoscopic pectopexy. Short-Term Postoper. Results. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2013, 287, 275–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. El Kassis, N.; Atallah, D.; Moukarzel, M.; Ghaname, W.; Chalouhy, C.; Suidan, J.; Villet, R.; Salet-Lizee, D. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: How to choose the best approach. J. Med. Libanais 2013, 61, 36–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Ercoli, A.; Cosma, S.; Riboni, F.; Campagna, G.; Petruzzelli, P.; Surico, D.; Danese, S.; Scambia, G.; Benedetto, C. Laparoscopic Nerve-Preserving Sacropexy. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 2017, 24, 1075–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Celentano, V.; Ausobsky, J.R.; Vowden, P. Surgical management of presacral bleeding. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2014, 96, 261–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. Rondelli, F.; Bugiantella, W.; Villa, F.; Sanguinetti, A.; Boni, M.; Mariani, E.; Avenia, N. Robot-assisted or conventional laparoscoic rectopexy for rectal prolapse? Systematic review and meta-analysis. Int. J. Surg. 2014, 12 Suppl. 2, S153–S159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Olsen, A.L.; Smith, V.J.; Bergstrom, J.O.; Colling, J.C.; Clark, A.L. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet. Gynecol. 1997, 89, 501–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Quagliariello, V.; Passariello, M.; Rea, D.; Barbieri, A.; Iovine, M.; Bonelli, A.; Caronna, A.; Botti, G.; De Lorenzo, C.; Maurea, N. Evidences of CTLA-4 and PD-1 Blocking Agents-Induced Cardiotoxicity in Cellular and Preclinical Models. J. Personal. Med. 2020, 10, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Quagliariello, V.; De Laurentiis, M.; Rea, D.; Barbieri, A.; Monti, M.G.; Carbone, A.; Paccone, A.; Altucci, L.; Conte, M.; Canale, M.L.; et al. The SGLT-2 inhibitor empagliflozin improves myocardial strain, reduces cardiac fibrosis and pro-inflammatory cytokines in non-diabetic mice treated with doxorubicin. Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 2021, 20, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Jones, K.A.; Harmanli, O. Pessary use in pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Rev. Obstet. Gynecol. 2010, 3, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the recruiting studies according to PRISMA.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the recruiting studies according to PRISMA.
Jcm 11 07166 g001
Figure 2. Categorization of the included studies.
Figure 2. Categorization of the included studies.
Jcm 11 07166 g002
Figure 3. Pooled mean difference of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of life score using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire (PFDI) [31,33,36,37,40,41,42,45,47,51,52,55,56].
Figure 3. Pooled mean difference of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of life score using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire (PFDI) [31,33,36,37,40,41,42,45,47,51,52,55,56].
Jcm 11 07166 g003
Figure 4. Funnel plot for the results of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of life score using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire [PFDI].
Figure 4. Funnel plot for the results of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of life score using the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire [PFDI].
Jcm 11 07166 g004
Figure 5. Pooled mean difference of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of life score using Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) [9,36,37,40,42,43,45,51,55].
Figure 5. Pooled mean difference of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of life score using Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) [9,36,37,40,42,43,45,51,55].
Jcm 11 07166 g005
Figure 6. Funnel plot for the results of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of life score using Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ).
Figure 6. Funnel plot for the results of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of life score using Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ).
Jcm 11 07166 g006
Figure 7. Pooled mean difference of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of sexual activity. (PSIQ: Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire, FSFI: Female Sexual Function Index) [9,20,24,37,39,42,43,55,56,61,75,76,85].
Figure 7. Pooled mean difference of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of sexual activity. (PSIQ: Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire, FSFI: Female Sexual Function Index) [9,20,24,37,39,42,43,55,56,61,75,76,85].
Jcm 11 07166 g007
Figure 8. Funnel plot for the results of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of sexual activity.
Figure 8. Funnel plot for the results of the effect of surgical intervention (vaginal and abdominal surgery) on total quality of sexual activity.
Jcm 11 07166 g008
Table 1. Questionnaires used in the recruited studies.
Table 1. Questionnaires used in the recruited studies.
General Instruments References
World Health Organization Quality of Life Questionnaire-Brief version (WHOQOL-BREF)[17,18]
King’s Health Questionnaire (KHQ)[19,20,21,22]
Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9[23]
36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36)[22,24,25,26,27,28]
12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12)[29,30]
Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I)[23,31,32,33,34]
European quality of Life Five Dimension (Euro Qol EQ-5D)[9,21,33]
Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS)[35]
Patient Satisfaction Index (PSI)[21]
Pelvic-specific instruments
Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-20 (PFDI- 20) *[9,27,31,33,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59]
Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12 (PISQ-12)[9,20,24,33,37,42,43,44,48,50,55,56,57,60,61,62]
Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL)[7,12,22,23,32,35,47,48,60,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]
Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score (POP-SS)[23]
Body Image in the Pelvic Organ Prolapse (BIPOP)[23]
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS)[28,30,32,49,66,80]
Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire-7 (PFIQ-7)[9,27,33,36,37,39,40,42,43,45,46,51,54,55,56,57,58,59,81]
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF)[9,33,57,80]
International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Quality of Life[49]
Sheffield Prolapse Symptoms Questionnaire (SPSQ)[21]
Patient Assessment of Constipation Quality of Life Questionnaire (Pac-QOL)[9]
German Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Questionnaire
[82,83,84]
Sexual functioning instruments
Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI)[9,13,26,75,76]
* The PFDI-20 consists of three parts, including the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI-6), the Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6), and the Colo-Rectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8).
Table 2. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of reconstructive vaginal surgeries by native tissue on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
Table 2. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of reconstructive vaginal surgeries by native tissue on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
First Author [Ref]Year/Study DesignSample SizeQuestionnaireProlapse Type and StageInterventionFollow UpMain FindingsQuality
Dhital [17]2013/Longitudinal study252WHOQOL-BREFAll types
≥ 3
Vaginal hysterectomy with pelvic floor surgery3 monthsAt three months post-surgery:
(1)
Physical domain improved from 11.2 to 13.5;
(2)
Psychological domain improved from 11.6 to 13.8;
(3)
Social relationships domain improved from 13.6 to 15;
(4)
Environmental domain improved from 12.9 to 14.
All changes were significant.
Good
De Oliveria [66]2014/Observational cohort65P-QOL +
ICIQ-VS
All types
NR
Anterior repair,
posterior repair,
sacrocolpopexy,
total vaginal hysterectomy
6 monthsPreoperative scores of all domains on the ICIQ-VS and P-QoL were significantly higher than those at three and six months after surgery (p < 0.0001).Fair
Klapdor [65]2017/Prospective observational study170P-QOLApical
NR
Sacrocolpopexy
hysterectomy,
anterior colporrhaphy,
posterior colporrhaphy,
vaginosacrocolporectopexy,
lateral repair
26.5 months The P-QOL scores were either low (<40) or very low (<20) after the intervention, indicating a high QOL among patients.Good
Jelovsek [38] 2018/Randomized clinical Trial374PFDIApical
≥ 2
Uterosacral ligament suspension vs. sacrospinous ligament fixation 6–60 monthsImprovements in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores were −59.4 in the BPMT group and −61.8 in the usual care group.Good
Vitale [61]2018/Prospective observational study20PISQ-12, SF-36Apical
2
Transvaginal bilateral sacrospinous fixation after second relapse12 monthsA significant improvement in SF-36 and PISQ-12 scores were found.Fair
Yalcin [24]2020/Prospective observational study26SF-36 +
PISQ-12
Apical
≥ 2
Sacrospinous ligament fixation with vaginal hysterectomy6 monthsQoL increased compared to baseline values for all the categories including physical functioning, bodily pain, physical health, general health, vitality, social activity, emotional state, and mental health (p < 0.001)Good
Mattsson [31]2020/Prospective observational study3515PFDI-20 +
PGI
All types
≥ 2
Sacrocolpopexy or
vaginal mesh
laparoscopy
24 months72% of the participants reported a clinically significant improvement in Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 at the 2-year follow-up.Good
Rechberger [64]2020/ Prospective observational study200ICIQ-SFNR
≥ 2
Vaginal native tissue repair12 monthsSignificant reduction in ICIQ-SF results after surgery.Fair
Karaca [60] 2021/Retrospective cohort118P-QOL +
PISQ-12
All types
≥ 3
McCall culdoplasty vs. sacrospinous ligament fixation12
months
McCall culdoplasty acted better (21.4(10.1) vs. 30.8(15.2); p = 0.03)Good
Derpapas [63] 2021/ Pilot randomized controlled trial22P-QOLPosterior
Any stages
Posterior colporrhaphy vs. vaginal plication of the posterior vaginal wall6 monthsSignificant QoL improvement in both groups after surgery. No significant between-group difference.Good
Kayondo [19] 2021/Prospective observational study130KHQAll types
≥ 2
Vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament vault fixation,
vaginal hysterectomy plus anterior and posterior repair with
uterosacral ligament vault fixation, posterior colporrhaphy,
anterior colporrhaphy
12 monthsOne year after surgery, the mean QOL scores across all domains and the overall QOL both significantly improved (p 0.001). Following surgery, the overall QOL increased by 38.9%. Good
Favre-Inhofer [36]2021/Retrospective cohort59PDFI-20 +
PFIQ
Apical
NR
Sacrospinous ligament fixation 60 months Satisfactory PDFI-20 and PFIQ-7 improvement. No significant difference for the two scores (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7) between patients with and without recurrence of complications.Good
Rodrigues [20]2021/Prospective observational study129PISQ-12 +
KHQ + P-QoL
All types
NR
Tension-free transvaginal tape, inside-out tension-free vaginal transobturator tape,
single-incision tape method
+ vaginal hysterectomy,
vaginal colporrhaphy,
vaginal vault suspension (sacrocolpopexy)
12 monthsPISQ-12 improvement from baseline mean 30.6 (SD 7.3) to 36.1 (SD 5.0); QoL questionnaires (KHQ+ P-QoL) showed a significant improvement (p < 0.001)Good
Belayne [23]2021/Longitudinal study224P-QoL +
POP-SS +
BIPOP +
PHQ-9 +
PGI
All types
≥ 2
Conventional anterior-posterior colporrhaphy
or uterine preserving sacrospinous fixation
3 and 6 monthsImprovement in all domains of P-QoL, and 72% meaningful patient satisfaction after 6 months. Improvements in POP-SS, BIPOP, and PHQ-9 scores were also observed.Good
Bedel [37] 2022/Prospective observational study46PFDI +
PFIQ +
PISQ
Posterior NRMidline rectovaginal fascial plication12
months
Improvement in PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 scores.Good
Table 3. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of reconstructive vaginal surgeries with mesh on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
Table 3. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of reconstructive vaginal surgeries with mesh on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
First Author [Ref]Year/Study DesignSample SizeQuestionnireProlapse Type and StageInterventionFollow UpResultQuality
El Haddad [44]2012/ Prospective observational study69PISQ-12 +
PFDI-20
Anterior ≥ 2Anterior vaginal mesh repair6 monthsSignificant decrease in QoL scores and significant increase in sexual activity.Fair
Yesil [83]2013/ Prospective observational study60German Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Questionnaire
Anterior ± Apical
≥ 2
Mesh +
anterior repair, anterior repair + posterior repair,
posterior repair
12 monthsSignificant decrease in QoL scores and significant increase in sexual activity.Fair
Thomin [55]2013/ Prospective observational study99PFDI-20 +
PFIQ-7 +
PISQ-12
Anterior
2 and 3
Anterior vaginal mesh repair6 months and then annuallyImprovement in PFDI and PFIQ after surgery (p < 0.001); PISQ did not change.Fair
Bartuzi [26] 2013/ Prospective observational study113SF-36All types
≥ 3
Anterior repair + posterior repair + mesh
anterior repair + mesh
posterior repair
+ mesh, total repair
6–8 weeks, 16–18 weeksImprovement in 3 individual domains (general health (GH), vitality (V) and mental health (MH)) and in one summary domain (MCS).Good
Hefni [21]2013/ Cross-sectional127Euro Qol EQ-5D +
SPSQ +
KHQ +
PSI
Anterior
NR
Anterior vaginal mesh repair6 weeks, 6 and 12 monthsPatients reported good current QoL and high patient satisfaction. Fair
Brocker [78]2015/ Prospective observational study69P-QOLAll types
≥ 2
Vaginal mesh repair12 monthsSignificant improvement in all domains of P-QoL.Good
Husch [32]2016/ Prospective observational study148PGI +
P-QOL +
ICIQ-VS
Anterior ± Apical
All stages
Anterior transvaginal mesh repair27.2 monthsThe results of the “prolapse-quality of life” questionnaire were comparable to asymptomatic women.Good
Buca [69]2016/ Prospective observational study116P-QOLAll types
≥ 2
Anterior repair + mesh,
anteroposterior repair + mesh, anteroposterior repair + hysterectomy +
mesh
24 monthsImprovement in “general state of patients health” (p < 0.05); physical, social, and psychological quality of life (p < 0.05); significant reduction in the percentage of patients with urinal disturbances (86.2% preoperative vs. 20.7% postoperative; p < 0.05); and an improvement in patient’s sexual activity.Fair
Lamblin [42]2016/Retrospective, nonrandomized study195PFDI-20 +
PFIQ-7 +
PISQ-12
Anterior + Apical
≥ 3
Anterior and apical repair12 and 24 monthsFunction improved, with significantly better PFIQ-7 (p = 0.03) and PFDI-20 (p = 0.02) scores in the mesh group.Good
Fünfgeld [68]2017/Prospective observational study289P-QOLAnterior
≥ 2
Cystocele correction36 monthsQuality of life scores improved significantly in all domains, including sexuality and personal relationships (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon test).Good
Rahkola-Soisalo [43]2017/ Prospective observational study207PFDI-20 +
PFIQ-7 +
PISQ-12
NR
≥ 2
Transvaginal mesh repair12 monthsOverall postoperative improvement in quality of life (p < 0.001).Fair
Kinjo [12]2018/Retrospective cohort237FSFI +
P-QOL
All types
≥ 2
Anterior trans vaginal mesh,
anteroposterior trans vaginal mesh,
C-trans vaginal mesh,
posterior trans vaginal mesh +- mid-urethral sling
12 monthsAll P-QOL dimensions were significantly improved after surgery. Overall, 79 patients completed the FSFI, and 14 (17.7%) were sexually active. The overall scores for sexual function were significantly improved after surgery. Fair
Alt [67]2018/ Prospective observational study130P-QOLAnterior ± posterior
≥ 2
Anterior, posterior,
or combined anterior/posterior mesh repair
12 weeks, 12 months,
60 months
Compared to the pre-surgical results, the scores are lowest (QOL increased) at 12 weeks after surgery and slightly increase up to 20–60% of the pre-surgical score results at the five-year follow-up (QOL decreased). Good
Altman [41]2018/ Prospective observational study207PFDI-20Apical ± anterior
≥ 2
Uphold™ vaginal support system12 monthsProlapse-related 15-dimensional instrument measures (excretion, discomfort, sexual activity, distress, and mobility) were significantly improved after surgery (p <0.05–0.001). Significant inverse associations were detected between increased 15D scores and a decrease in PFDI-20 and subscale scores (p < 0.001), indicating improvements on both instruments. Good
Cadenbach [7]2019/ Prospective observational study54P-QOLAnterior
≥ 2
Anterior repair12 monthsAn improvement in quality of life could be determined during the study in all domains investigated (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon test).Fair
Sukgen [25]2020/ Prospective observational study36SF-36NR
≥ 2
Not specified6–8 weeks-
16–18 months
Some quality-of-life domains (i.e., vitality and mental health), as well as physical and mental health summary scores, improved significantly. Fair
Zalewski [35]2020/Before after study60P-QOL +
SWLS
Apical
≥ 3
Sacrospinous ligament fixation12 monthsNearly all domains in questionnaires were statistically improved after surgery.Good
Sukgen [85] 2021/Prospective observational study72FSFINR
NR
Vaginal mesh surgery3 and 12 monthsPositive change in quality of life and sexual function of patients following the intervention. Significant increase according to FSFI score among all endpoints (16%, 86%, and 100% respectively, p = 0.001).Fair
Naumann [82] 2021/Retrospective cohort107German Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Questionnaire
Anterior ± apical
All stages
Anterior repair
± apical in recurrent or complex prolapse
18 monthsThe total score of the GPOP-Q decreased significantly by 6.4 (p < 0.001). Improvement in each domain was observed.Good
Deltetto [62] 2021/Prospective observational study15PISQ-12Posterior
2
Posterior vaginal repair12 monthsThe quality of life was significantly improved in the majority of patients (p < 0.05).Fair
Nakai [29] 2021/ Prospective observational study28SF-12Anterior or apical
≥ 3
Vaginal hysterectomy and utero-sacral ligament colpopexy12 monthsPostoperative QOL was improved in all eight domains after surgery in both synthetic polypropylene and polytetrafluoroethylene mesh groups.Good
Lo [39] 2021/Retrospective cohort83PFDI-20+
PISQ-12
Anterior or apical
≥ 3
Vaginal hysterectomy, mesh repair, posterior colporrhaphy 6 and 12 monthsSignificant improvement in QoL questionnares. Good
Chiang [40] 2021/Randomized controlled trial64PFDI-20 +
PFIQ-7
Anterior
≥ 2
Transvaginal mesh with concomitant midline fascial plication6, and 12
months
Both groups were improved regarding QoL.Fair
Lucot [9] 2022/Randomized controlled trial262PFDI +
PFIQ +
FSFI +
PISQ-IR +
EQ-5D-3L +
ICIQ-UI
Anterior
≥ 2
Transvaginal mesh surgery vs.
laparoscopic mesh sacropexy
18, 24, 36, and
48 months
Laparoscopic sacropexy acted better than trans-vaginal mesh surgery.Good
Table 4. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of obliterative vaginal surgeries on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
Table 4. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of obliterative vaginal surgeries on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
First Author
[Ref]
Year/Study DesignSample SizeQuestionnaireProlapse Type and StageInterventionFollow UpMain FindingsQuality
Yeniel [73]2012/Prospective observational study10P-QOLNR
≥ 3
Le Fort colpocleisis6 monthsReduced scores of P-QoL, reflecting improvement in QoL following colpocleisis.Good
Katsara [86]2016/Retrospective study44Author’s designAll types
NR
Le Fort colpocleisis13 yearsOverall, 75% reported a positive impact on QoL, 10% a negative because of urinary problems, 10% could not report any change in the QoL, and 5% could not answer this question.Good
Petcharopas [72]2018/Retrospective cohort study295P- QOLNR
≥ 1
Le Fort colpocleisis
vs.
vaginal hysterectomy,
sling,
anterior repair, posterior repair, McCall culdoplasty,
vaginal vault suspension
23.87 monthsP-QOL scale revealed significantly less postoperative impairment in the obliterative surgery group (1.75 vs. 5.26, p = 0.023). There were no significant differences in other P-QOL domains. Le Fort acted better in elderly.Good
Ertas [71] 2021/Retrospective cohort study53P-QOLAll types
≥ 3
Le Fort colpocleisis1, 6, and 12
months
Significant improve in the postoperative P-QoL score (p < 0.001).Fair
Karaca [79]2021/Retrospective cohort study98P-QOLNR
NR
Le Fort colpocleisis vs. sacrospinus fixationImmediately after surgeryLe Fort acted better in elderlyFair
Farghali [18]2021/Prospective comparative study86WHOQOL-
BREF
All types
≥ 2
Le Fort colpocleisis vs. sacrospinous fixation6 weeks; 3, 6, 12 monthsSacrospinous fixation acted better than Le Fort. Psychological and social health domains were significantly higher in the sacrospinous fixation group compared to the Le Fort group (p2 = 0.04 and 0.02, respectively). General health satisfaction and total QoL scores were significantly higher in the sacrospinous fixation group compared to the Le Fort group (p2 = 0.03 and 0.01, respectively).Fair
Agacayak [27]2022/Prospective comparative study46SF-36 +
UDI +
PFIQ
Anterior ± Posterior
≥ 3
Le Fort colpocleisis vs. sacrospinus fixation6 months, 2 and 5 yearsLe Fort acted better than sacrospinus fixation. Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire and SF36 were found to be significantly better in the Le Fort group (p. = 0.039 and 0.042, respectively).
Table 5. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of abdominal surgeries on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
Table 5. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of abdominal surgeries on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
First Author [Ref]Year/Study DesignSample SizeQuestionnaireProlapse Type and StageInterventionFollow UpMain FindingsQuality
Thibault [56]2013/Prospective observational cohort148PISQ-12+
PFDI-20+
PFIQ-7
All types
≥ 2
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy12 monthsImprovement in PISQ-12, PFDI-20, and PFIQ-7 total mean scores. (p < 0.05).Good
Majkusiak [88]2015/Observational study4010-point analogue scale-sex-QOLApical ≥ 3cAbdominal cervicosacropexy (laparotomy)18 monthsThe average score of the quality of sexual life was 5.75 (SD 2.52, 95% CI: 4.41–7.1) before and increased to 7.93 (SD 1.77, 95% CI: 6.9–8.95) after the procedure (p < 0.05). The mean score of the overall QoL in relation to POP before and after the surgery was 2.77 (SD 2.39, 95% CI: 1.87–8.64) and 9.03 (SD 1.08, 95% CI: 8.66–9.43), respectively (p < 0.001).Good
Linder [54]2015/Retrospective observational cohort84PFIQ-7 + PFDI-20Apical ≥ 3Robotic sacrohysteropexy72 months
Minimal postoperative pelvic floor complications and high rate of patient satisfaction achieved.Good
Grimminack [53]2016/Prospective observational cohort50PFDI-20Anterior ±
posterior
> 2
Robotic sacrohysteropexy60 monthsImprovement in the QoL following surgery (p < 0.05).Good
Nguyen [52]2018/Prospective observational cohort222PFDIAll types
≥ 1
Vaginal and abdominal repair12 monthsImprovement in QoL of both groups after 1 year. Vaginal group showed higher QoL scores (45.6 vs. 32.6, p = 0.032).Fair
Tahaoglu [76]2018/Observational study22FSFI +
P-QOL
All types
≥ 2
Laparoscopic pectopexy6 monthsFSFI and P-QOL scores improved significantly following surgery (p < 0.05).Fair
Pizzoferrato [33]2019/Observational study152PFDI-20 +
ICIQ-UI SF +
PFIQ-7 +
Euro Qol EQ-5D + PISQ-12 +
PGI-1
All types
≥ 2
laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy48 months Improvement in PFDI-20 (median: 47.4 before surgery vs. 34.4 afterwards, p = 0.002); improvement in PGI-I score = 1.8 ± 1.1.Fair
MäkeläKaikkonen [51]2019/Prospective randomized study30PFDI-20+
PFIQ-7
Posterior
≥ 2
Laparoscopic and robotic ventral mesh rectopexy 24 monthsBoth were comparableGood
Luque [87] 2020/Prospective observational cohort33Pac-QoLApical + posterior
≥ 3
Laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy6, 12, and 36 monthsSignificant improvement in QoL scores at 6, 12, and 36 months following surgery. Fair
Zhu [45] 2021/Retrospective study50PFIQ-7 + PFDI-20Apical ≥ 2Modified laparoscopic uterine suspension and vaginal hysterectomy and sacrospinous ligament fixation12 monthsImprovement in QoL (P < 0.001 for PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20).Fair
Van Zanten [46] 2021/Prospective observational cohort77PFDI-20 +
PFIQ-7
Apical ≥ 2Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy and supracervical hysterectomy with sacrocervicopexy 50 monthsImprovement in median UDI-6 scores (26.7 vs. 22.2, p = 0.048), and median PFIQ-7 scores (60.0 vs. 0, p = 0.008).Good
Sliwa [47] 2021/Observational cohort42P-QOL +
PFDI-20
All types
≥ 3
Laparoscopic anterior fixation with mesh12 monthsImprovement in P-QoL score, as well as PFDI-20, along with its 3 symptom scales.Fair
Karsli [48] 2021/Observational cohort31P-QOL +
PISQ-12 + PFDI-20
Apical ≥ 3Laparoscopic pectopexy3 monthsImprovement in P-QOL (from 83.45 ± 8.7 (64–98) to 8.61 ± 6.4 (0–23) (p < 0.05)); in PISQ-12 from 29.61 ± 4.8 (14–38) to 7.1 ± 3.2 (1–13)). Significant improvement in UDI-6 after procedure.Fair
Cengiz [49] 2021/Randomized controlled Study49ICIQ-VS+
ICIQ-QOL+
PFDI-20
Apical ≥ 2Vaginal assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy vs. vaginal
hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension
12 monthsICIQ-VS score, ICIQ-QOL, UDI-6, and IIQ-7 scores were improved for both groups.Good
Akbaba [74] 2021/Retrospective study37P-QOLAnterior + apical ≥ 3Laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh20 monthsImprovement.Good
Okcu [50] 2021/Prospective observational cohort65PISQ-12+
PFDI-20
All types Any stagesVaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament
fixation, laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy or abdominal
hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy
36 monthsAbdominal group acted better (p = 0.047), while the sexual function was similar.Good
Obut [75]2021/ Prospective randomized study62FSFI +
P-QOL
Apical ≥ 2Laparoscopic pectopexy-hysterosacropexy12 monthsImprovement in all domains of POP-Q, P-QOL, and FSFI scores in both groups.Good
D’altilia [81] 2022/Prospective randomized study95PFIQ-7Anterior + Apical
NR
Laparoscopic, robotic or abdominal sacrocolpopexy 36 monthsSingle anterior vaginal mesh acted better than anterior/posterior mesh.Good
Table 6. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of pessary on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
Table 6. The characteristics of the studies on the effectiveness of pessary on the quality of life in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
First Author
[Ref]
Year/Study DesignSample SizeQuestionnaireProlapse Type and StageInterventionFollow UpResultQuality
Manchana [77]2012/Retrospective observational study126P-QOLNR
≥ 2
Ring pessary12 monthsThe median score from all PQOL domains except personal relationships were significantly decreased after 1 year of ring pessary use. The median total scores at baseline and at 1 year were 40 and 8, respectively (p < 0.001).Good
Lone [80]2015/Prospective observational study287ICIQ-VS +
ICIQ-UI SF
NR
≥ 1
Pessary (ring/cub/Gellhorn) vs. surgery12 monthsBoth groups were improved regarding QoL. No statistically significant between-group difference was noted.Good
Tenfelde [59]2015/Observational cross-sectional study56PFDI-20 +
PFIQ-7
NR
NR
Pessary-Overall, women reported high levels of QOL. Health-related QoL scores correlated negatively with PFDI-20 scores (ρ = −0.55, p = 0.001). Women with higher QoL reported fewer pelvic floor symptoms for each of the subscales (urinary, colorectal, and prolapse).Fair
Coelho [28]2018/Prospective observational study19ICIQ-VS +
SF-36
Anterior±apical ≥ 3Ring pessary6 monthsSF-36 had significant improvement in three specific domains: general state of health (p = 0.090), vitality (p = 0.0497), and social aspects (p = 0.007). ICIQ-VS presented a reduction in the vaginal symptoms (p < 0.0001) and an improvement in QoL (p < 0.0001).Fair
Yang [58]2018/Retrospective study300PFDI-20 +
PFIQ-7
All types NRRing—Gellhorn6 monthsImprovement.Good
Mao [89]2018/Prospective observational study142PFDI-20 +
PFIQ-7
Anterior Posterior
≥ 3
Ring with support pessary, follow-up with Gellhorn if failed13–24 monthsImprovement in both questionnaires. All domains were improved significantly (p < 0.001). Good
Bradley [57] 2021/Cross-sectional analysis568PFDI-20 +
PFIQ-7 +
PISQ-12 +
ICIQ-UI-SF
All types Any stagePessary vs. surgery (both reconstructive and obliterative)36 monthsWomen choosing POP surgery vs. pessary had similar physical and mental generic QOL.Good
Mendes [22] 2021/Prospective observational study50SF-36 +
P-QOL +
KHQ
All types Any stagesRing pessary4 monthsImprovement in the general and specific quality of life of women.Fair
Thys [34]
2021/Prospective observational study291PGI-I +
DSQOL
All types ≥ 2Ring pessary with or without knob-space filling pessary12 monthsImprovement.Good
Carlin [84]
2021/Retrospective study130German Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Questionnaire
All types Any stagesPessary vs. surgery3 monthsSurgery acted better than pessary.Fair
Zeiger [30] 2022/Multicenter, longitudinal, prospective observational study97ICIQ-VS +
SF-12
NR
≥ 3
Ring pessary6 monthsImproved sexual function (78.6%), vaginal symptoms (91.8%), and quality of life (92.8%) (p < 0.01) after the intervention.Good
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ghanbari, Z.; Ghaemi, M.; Shafiee, A.; Jelodarian, P.; Hosseini, R.S.; Pouyamoghaddam, S.; Montazeri, A. Quality of Life Following Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatments in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 7166. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237166

AMA Style

Ghanbari Z, Ghaemi M, Shafiee A, Jelodarian P, Hosseini RS, Pouyamoghaddam S, Montazeri A. Quality of Life Following Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatments in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(23):7166. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237166

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ghanbari, Zinat, Marjan Ghaemi, Arman Shafiee, Parivash Jelodarian, Reihaneh Sadat Hosseini, Shahla Pouyamoghaddam, and Ali Montazeri. 2022. "Quality of Life Following Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatments in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 23: 7166. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11237166

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop