{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]],"date-time":"2026-10-21T12:44:35Z","timestamp":1792586675236,"version":"4.5.0"},"reference-count":55,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]],"date-time":"2026-10-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1792540800000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]],"date-time":"2026-10-21T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1792540800000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Int Urogynecol J"],"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Introduction and Hypothesis<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Apical repairs for uterovaginal prolapse (UPOP) are generally elective procedures with significant quality-of-life benefit; however, uncommon and potentially severe complications may occur. Our goal was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand risks for and estimate the incidence of major complications of common surgical approaches to UPOP repair.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE through 11\/11\/25 for studies describing risk factors for, or incidence of, severe complications due to surgical UPOP repair. Data collected included risk factor analysis and incidence data for major intraoperative injury (bowel, bladder, ureteral, or nerve) and major surgical complications (transfusion, small bowel obstruction, perioperative death, mesh complication, reoperations, and readmissions, and sum of any major complication). Pooled proportions were estimated using a random-effects meta-analysis of proportions, and between-group comparisons were performed using mixed-effects meta-regression for major surgical approaches to UPOP repair (vaginal native tissue (VNT), minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MIS SCP), transvaginal mesh (TVM); all transabdominal MIS (laparoscopic\/robotic), all vaginal reconstructive; VNT with hysterectomy, and VNT with hysteropexy).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Of the 8890 abstracts screened, 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall quality of evidence was moderate. MIS had higher pooled incidence of intraoperative bowel injury compared to vaginal approaches (0.48%; CI 0.27\u20130.84 vs 0.18%; CI 0.09\u20130.35,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.028); however, with lower risk of transfusion (0.35%; CI 0.14%\u20130.87% vs 0.99%; CI 0.67%\u20131.46%,\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.04). Total intraoperative injury estimates were similar between groups (0.11%; CI 0.01\u20130.81 vs 0.65%; CI 0.20\u20132.06.\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.135). TVM was associated with higher total major complications (17.98%; CI 9.44\u201331.56) than VNT (5.01%; CI 3.07\u20138.07) or MIS SCP (6.41%; CI 4.13\u20139.84)\n                      <jats:italic>p<\/jats:italic>\n                      \u2009=\u20090.007. A narrative review of risk factors for surgical complications identified significant heterogeneity and low confidence in reported risk factors.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Severe complications following repair of primary UPOP are infrequent. Abdominal MIS carry higher risk of bowel injury, with lower risk of transfusion compared to vaginal approaches. These data should inform shared decision-making for surgeons and patients considering surgical repair for primary UPOP.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-026-06933-9","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]],"date-time":"2026-10-21T12:13:45Z","timestamp":1792584825000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Cumulative Incidence and Surgical Risk Factors for Severe Postoperative Complications in the Treatment of Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"],"prefix":"10.1007","author":[{"given":"Dylan T.","family":"Wolff","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Maria J.","family":"D\u2019Amico","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Fernanda","family":"Santis-Moya","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Alexander","family":"Koven","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Danielle D.","family":"Antosh","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Reut","family":"Rotem","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Iryna","family":"Schmeil","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Javiar","family":"Pizarro-Berdichevsky","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jan","family":"Deprest","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Kaidi","family":"Kang","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"MacKenzie","family":"Wood","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Amy","family":"Sisson","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Howard B.","family":"Goldman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Jacqueline","family":"Zillioux","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]]},"reference":[{"issue":"11","key":"6933_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1311","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.300.11.1311","volume":"300","author":"I Nygaard","year":"2008","unstructured":"Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, Kenton K, Meikle S, Schaffer J, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311\u20136.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"1","key":"6933_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"141","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000000057","volume":"123","author":"JM Wu","year":"2014","unstructured":"Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, Redden DT, Burgio KL, Richter HE, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):141\u20138.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"3","key":"6933_CR3","first-page":"524","volume":"53","author":"Z Hadizadeh-Talasaz","year":"2024","unstructured":"Hadizadeh-Talasaz Z, Khadivzadeh T, Mohajeri T, Sadeghi M. Worldwide prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis Iran. J Public Health. 2024;53(3):524\u201338.","journal-title":"J Public Health"},{"issue":"5","key":"6933_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1096","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e3181f73729","volume":"116","author":"FJ Smith","year":"2010","unstructured":"Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096\u2013100.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"2 Pt 1","key":"6933_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"367","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0b013e318195888d","volume":"113","author":"GB Diwadkar","year":"2009","unstructured":"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\u201373.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"key":"6933_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-026-06758-6","author":"AG Gupta","year":"2026","unstructured":"Gupta AG, Badlani C. A global consensus conference on surgical management of primary uterovaginal prolapse and lower urinary tract dysfunction: combining evidence with expert opinion. Int Urogynecol J. 2026. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-026-06758-6.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"7454","key":"6933_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1490","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.328.7454.1490","volume":"328","author":"D Atkins","year":"2004","unstructured":"Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"issue":"1","key":"6933_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"321","DOI":"10.1007\/s00404-023-07112-7","volume":"309","author":"JM Selle","year":"2024","unstructured":"Selle JM, Hokenstad ED, Habermann EB, Bews KA, Occhino JA. The effect of concomitant hysterectomy on complications following pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024;309(1):321\u20137.","journal-title":"Arch Gynecol Obstet"},{"issue":"4","key":"6933_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"953","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2019.08.010","volume":"27","author":"O Cardenas-Trowers","year":"2020","unstructured":"Cardenas-Trowers O, Stewart JR, Meriwether KV, Francis SL, Gupta A. Perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy based on route of concurrent hysterectomy: a secondary analysis of the national surgical quality improvement program database. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27(4):953\u20138.","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"4","key":"6933_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"603","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-018-3769-1","volume":"30","author":"EA Slopnick","year":"2019","unstructured":"Slopnick EA, Petrikovets A, Sheyn D, Kim SP, Nguyen CT, Hijaz AK. Surgical trends and patient factors associated with the treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse from a national sample. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):603\u20139.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"10","key":"6933_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2093","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-025-06175-1","volume":"36","author":"S Su","year":"2025","unstructured":"Su S, Neman S, Fields N, Luchristt D, Bretschneider CE. Association of minimally invasive hysterectomy route at the time of sacrocolpopexy with postoperative complications. Int Urogynecol J. 2025;36(10):2093\u20138.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"4","key":"6933_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"993","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-020-04521-z","volume":"32","author":"CE Bretschneider","year":"2021","unstructured":"Bretschneider CE, Sheyn D, Mahajan S, Propst K, Ridgeway B. Complications following vaginal colpopexy for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(4):993\u20139.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"10","key":"6933_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1023","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2014.1719","volume":"311","author":"MD Barber","year":"2014","unstructured":"Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Weidner AC, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1023\u201334.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"6","key":"6933_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"363","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000202","volume":"21","author":"HM Barbier","year":"2015","unstructured":"Barbier HM, Smith MZ, Eto CU, Welgoss JA, Von Pechmann W, Horbach N, et al. Ureteral compromise in laparoscopic versus vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension: a retrospective cohort. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(6):363\u20138.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"12","key":"6933_CR15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1809","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-015-2770-1","volume":"26","author":"E Jackson","year":"2015","unstructured":"Jackson E, Bilbao JA, Vera RW, Mulla ZD, Mallett VT, Montoya TI. Risk factors for ureteral occlusion during transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(12):1809\u201314.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"5","key":"6933_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1418","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2006.01.051","volume":"194","author":"JM Wu","year":"2006","unstructured":"Wu JM, Wells EC, Hundley AF, Connolly A, Williams KS, Visco AG. Mesh erosion in abdominal sacral colpopexy with and without concomitant hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1418\u201322.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"3","key":"6933_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"669","DOI":"10.1097\/JU.0000000000002262","volume":"207","author":"K Dallas","year":"2022","unstructured":"Dallas K, Taich L, Kuhlmann P, Rogo-Gupta L, Eilber K, Anger JT, et al. Supracervical hysterectomy is protective against mesh complications after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a population-based cohort study of 12,189 patients. J Urol. 2022;207(3):669\u201376.","journal-title":"J Urol"},{"issue":"3","key":"6933_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1002","DOI":"10.1002\/nau.24323","volume":"39","author":"SDRB da Silveira","year":"2020","unstructured":"da Silveira SDRB, Auge AP, Jarmy-Dibella ZI, Margarido PF, Carramao S, Alves Rodrigues C, et al. A multicenter, randomized trial comparing pelvic organ prolapse surgical treatment with native tissue and synthetic mesh: a 5-year follow-up study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020;39(3):1002\u201311.","journal-title":"Neurourol Urodyn"},{"issue":"11","key":"6933_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1054","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2019.12812","volume":"322","author":"CW Nager","year":"2019","unstructured":"Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, Rardin CR, Rogers RG, Harvie HS, et al. 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\u201365.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"9","key":"6933_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1111\/jog.70051","volume":"51","author":"K Okamura","year":"2025","unstructured":"Okamura K, Yoshizawa K, Kawanishi H, Miyata Y, Tanaka J, Yoshino Y. Transvaginal mesh surgery for pelvic organ prolapse without blind maneuver: follow-up of 1 year or longer. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2025;51(9):e70051.","journal-title":"J Obstet Gynaecol Res"},{"issue":"2","key":"6933_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"202","DOI":"10.1111\/iju.14425","volume":"28","author":"K Kato","year":"2021","unstructured":"Kato K, Suzuki S, Ishiyama A, Kawanishi H, Matsui H, Kato T, et al. Mesh exposure after transvaginal mesh prolapse surgery: out of permissible range? Int J Urol. 2021;28(2):202\u20137.","journal-title":"Int J Urol"},{"issue":"2","key":"6933_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e0228566","DOI":"10.1371\/journal.pone.0228566","volume":"15","author":"TY Kim","year":"2020","unstructured":"Kim TY, Jeon MJ. Risk factors for vaginal mesh erosion after sacrocolpopexy in Korean women. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(2):e0228566.","journal-title":"PLoS ONE"},{"issue":"5","key":"6933_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"547.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2014.07.054","volume":"211","author":"CA Unger","year":"2014","unstructured":"Unger CA, Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Ridgeway B. Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;211(5):547.e1-8.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"3","key":"6933_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"286","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000001468","volume":"30","author":"S Ashmore","year":"2024","unstructured":"Ashmore S, Kenton K, Das D, Bretschneider CE. Obesity and reconstructive pelvic surgery: an ACS NSQIP study. Urogynecology (Phila). 2024;30(3):286\u201392.","journal-title":"Urogynecology (Phila)"},{"issue":"13","key":"6933_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1","DOI":"10.3310\/hta24130","volume":"24","author":"C Hemming","year":"2020","unstructured":"Hemming C, Constable L, Goulao B, Kilonzo M, Boyers D, Elders A, et al. Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs. Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England). 2020;24(13):1\u2013220.","journal-title":"Health Technol Assess (Winchester, England)"},{"issue":"4","key":"6933_CR26","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"359","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jogc.2021.10.012","volume":"44","author":"R Wang","year":"2022","unstructured":"Wang R, Tunitsky-Bitton E, Ramaseshan AS. Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022;44(4):359\u201364.","journal-title":"J Obstet Gynaecol Can"},{"issue":"8","key":"6933_CR27","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1101","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-018-3666-7","volume":"29","author":"RG Rogers","year":"2018","unstructured":"Rogers RG, Nolen TL, Weidner AC, Richter HE, Jelovsek JE, Shepherd JP, et al. Open sacrocolpopexy and vaginal apical repair: retrospective comparison of success and serious complications. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(8):1101\u201310.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"5","key":"6933_CR28","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1111","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-023-05457-w","volume":"34","author":"J Raina","year":"2023","unstructured":"Raina J, Bastrash MP, Suarthana E, Larouche M. Perioperative complication rates of colpocleisis performed with or without concomitant hysterectomy: a large population-based study. Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34(5):1111\u20138.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"7","key":"6933_CR29","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"626","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2023.13140","volume":"330","author":"RA Enklaar","year":"2023","unstructured":"Enklaar RA, Schulten SFM, van Eijndhoven HWF, Weemhoff M, van Leijsen SAL, van der Weide MC, et al. Manchester procedure vs sacrospinous hysteropexy for treatment of uterine descent: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330(7):626\u201335.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"7","key":"6933_CR30","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1469","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-024-05826-z","volume":"35","author":"ACC Tan","year":"2024","unstructured":"Tan ACC, Latthe P. The outcomes of the manchester procedure versus sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy for uterine prolapse: a study of the British society of urogynaecology database. Int Urogynecol J. 2024;35(7):1469\u201375.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"5","key":"6933_CR31","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"E142","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000001133","volume":"28","author":"SE Andiman","year":"2022","unstructured":"Andiman SE, Bui AH, Ascher-Walsh C, Wright JD, Xu X. Surgical complications and hospital costs in robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic hysterectomy with concurrent sacrocolpopexy: analysis of the nationwide readmissions database. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2022;28(5):E142\u20138.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"4","key":"6933_CR32","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"545","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-018-3702-7","volume":"30","author":"E Bataller","year":"2019","unstructured":"Bataller E, Ros C, Angl\u00e8s S, Gallego M, Espu\u00f1a-Pons M, Carmona F. Anatomical outcomes 1 year after pelvic organ prolapse surgery in patients with and without a uterus at a high risk of recurrence: a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy\/cervicopexy and anterior vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):545\u201355.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"2","key":"6933_CR33","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"401","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-019-04017-5","volume":"31","author":"A Dubinskaya","year":"2020","unstructured":"Dubinskaya A, Hernandez-Aranda D, Wakefield DB, Shepherd JP. Comparing laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy surgical outcomes with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(2):401\u20137.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"10","key":"6933_CR34","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"814","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000001530","volume":"30","author":"LE Giugale","year":"2024","unstructured":"Giugale LE, Ruppert KM, Muluk SL, Glass Clark SM, Bradley MS, Wu JM, et al. Minimally invasive total versus supracervical hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy. Urogynecology (Hagerstown). 2024;30(10):814\u201320.","journal-title":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown)"},{"issue":"2","key":"6933_CR35","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"355","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003884","volume":"136","author":"CA Matthews","year":"2020","unstructured":"Matthews CA, Geller EJ, Henley BR, Kenton K, Myers EM, Dieter AA, et al. Permanent compared with absorbable suture for vaginal mesh fixation during total hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(2):355\u201364.","journal-title":"Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"1","key":"6933_CR36","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"98","DOI":"10.1002\/nau.25052","volume":"42","author":"A Morciano","year":"2023","unstructured":"Morciano A, Ercoli A, Caliandro D, Campagna G, Panico G, Giaquinto A, et al. Laparoscopic posterior vaginal plication plus sacral colpopexy for severe posterior vaginal prolapse: a randomized clinical trial. Neurourol Urodyn. 2023;42(1):98\u2013105.","journal-title":"Neurourol Urodyn"},{"issue":"9","key":"6933_CR37","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1251","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-014-2391-0","volume":"25","author":"LC Turner","year":"2014","unstructured":"Turner LC, Kantartzis K, Lowder JL, Shepherd JP. The effect of age on complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1251\u20136.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"5","key":"6933_CR38","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"317","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000000278","volume":"22","author":"L Turner","year":"2016","unstructured":"Turner L, Lavelle E, Lowder JL, Shepherd JP. The impact of obesity on intraoperative complications and prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(5):317\u201323.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"e4l","key":"6933_CR39","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"206","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2024.08.020","volume":"301","author":"M Barba","year":"2024","unstructured":"Barba M, Cola A, Costa C, De Vicari D, Amatucci N, Melocchi T, et al. Outcomes of uterosacral ligaments suspension for uterovaginal prolapse native-tissue repair: over 1000-patient single-center study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2024;301(e4l):206\u20139.","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"issue":"11","key":"6933_CR40","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"2985","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-020-04650-5","volume":"32","author":"OH Chang","year":"2021","unstructured":"Chang OH, Tewari S, Sun JY, Ferrando CA. Risk factors for ureteral obstruction and the diagnostic value of the \u201ccysto-under-tension\u201d technique at the time of uterosacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(11):2985\u201392.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"key":"6933_CR41","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"97","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2022.02.006","volume":"271","author":"HH Chill","year":"2022","unstructured":"Chill HH, Ben Porat L, Winer J, Moss NP, Cohen A, Shveiky D. Infected pelvic hematoma following vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of apical prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;271:97\u2013101.","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"issue":"8900488, bmj, 1","key":"6933_CR42","volume":"351","author":"RJ Detollenaere","year":"2015","unstructured":"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 (Clinical research ed). 2015;351:h3717.","journal-title":"BMJ (Clinical research ed)"},{"issue":"5","key":"6933_CR43","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"406","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2024.01.018","volume":"31","author":"WY Hwang","year":"2024","unstructured":"Hwang WY, Jeon MJ, Suh DH. Minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse: a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2024;31(5):406\u201313.","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"2","key":"6933_CR44","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"153.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2021.03.012","volume":"225","author":"CW Nager","year":"2021","unstructured":"Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, Rardin CR, Komesu Y, Harvie HS, 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.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"11","key":"6933_CR45","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1687","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-015-2761-2","volume":"26","author":"P Rahmanou","year":"2015","unstructured":"Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1687\u201394.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"7","key":"6933_CR46","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"615","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2023.12317","volume":"330","author":"DD Rahn","year":"2023","unstructured":"Rahn DD, Richter HE, Sung VW, Pruszynski JE, Hynan LS. Perioperative vaginal estrogen as adjunct to native tissue vaginal apical prolapse repair: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2023;330(7):615\u201325.","journal-title":"JAMA"},{"issue":"5","key":"6933_CR47","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"797","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-015-2897-0","volume":"27","author":"LC Turner","year":"2016","unstructured":"Turner LC, Lavelle ES, Shepherd JP. Comparison of complications and prolapse recurrence between laparoscopic and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for the treatment of vaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(5):797\u2013803.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"5","key":"6933_CR48","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"603.e1","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2014.11.034","volume":"212","author":"CA Unger","year":"2015","unstructured":"Unger CA, Walters MD, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Paraiso MFR. Incidence of adverse events after uterosacral colpopexy for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(5):603.e1-7.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"10","key":"6933_CR49","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"621","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000001011","volume":"27","author":"AS Yuan","year":"2021","unstructured":"Yuan AS, Chang OH, Ferrando CA. Perioperative adverse events in women undergoing vaginal prolapse repair with uterine preservation versus concurrent hysterectomy: a matched cohort study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27(10):621\u20136.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"9","key":"6933_CR50","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e2231869","DOI":"10.1001\/jamanetworkopen.2022.31869","volume":"5","author":"J Chen","year":"2022","unstructured":"Chen J, Yu J, Morse A, Tao G, Gong J, Wang B, et al. Effectiveness of self-cut vs mesh-kit titanium-coated polypropylene mesh for transvaginal treatment of severe pelvic organ prolapse: a multicenter randomized noninferiority clinical trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(9):e2231869.","journal-title":"JAMA Netw Open"},{"issue":"4","key":"6933_CR51","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"315","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-005-0003-8","volume":"17","author":"P Collinet","year":"2006","unstructured":"Collinet P, Belot F, Debodinance P, Ha Duc E, Lucot J-P, Cosson M. Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(4):315\u201320.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct"},{"issue":"2","key":"6933_CR52","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"275","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmig.2020.05.015","volume":"28","author":"GC Chapman","year":"2021","unstructured":"Chapman GC, Slopnick EA, Roberts K, Sheyn D, Wherley S, Mahajan ST, et al. National analysis of perioperative morbidity of vaginal versus laparoscopic hysterectomy at the time of uterosacral ligament suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021;28(2):275\u201381.","journal-title":"J Minim Invasive Gynecol"},{"issue":"7","key":"6933_CR53","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"CD012376","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.CD012376.pub2","volume":"7","author":"C Maher","year":"2023","unstructured":"Maher C, Yeung E, Haya N, Christmann-Schmid C, Mowat A, Chen Z, et al. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;7(7):CD012376.","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"issue":"3","key":"6933_CR54","volume":"3","author":"E Yeung","year":"2024","unstructured":"Yeung E, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Chen Z, Wallace SA, et al. Transvaginal mesh or grafts or native tissue repair for vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024;3(3):CD012079.","journal-title":"Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"issue":"9","key":"6933_CR55","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"753","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0000000000001458","volume":"30","author":"R Dutta","year":"2024","unstructured":"Dutta R, Xu R, Wolff DT, Badlani GH, Matthews CA. Specialty-specific trends in surgery for apical pelvic organ prolapse post vaginal mesh. Urogynecology (Hagerstown). 2024;30(9):753\u20137.","journal-title":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown)"}],"container-title":["International Urogynecology Journal"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00192-026-06933-9.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00192-026-06933-9","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00192-026-06933-9.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]],"date-time":"2026-10-21T12:13:46Z","timestamp":1792584826000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00192-026-06933-9"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]]},"references-count":55,"alternative-id":["6933"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-026-06933-9","relation":{},"ISSN":["0937-3462","1433-3023"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0937-3462","type":"print"},{"value":"1433-3023","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,21]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2 June 2026","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"19 September 2026","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"21 October 2026","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"We utilized publicly available, previously published data; therefore no institutional review board (IRB) approval was necessary for this work.","order":1,"name":"Ethics","label":"Ethics Approval","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}},{"value":"HBG: Consultant for: Medtronic, Laborie, Sumitomo Pharma, Minze, Vensica, Nina Medical, NewUro, Boston Scientific, BrightUro, Neuspera, Zsquare.Scientific Study: Cook.DSMB Chair: Iota.JDP: General Electrics (research support).JZ: Silq technologies (study), Laborie (study).DDA: Consultant for Abbvie and Cook Myosite.JP: Neomedic (speaker\/proctor), Medtronic (speaker\/proctor).The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","label":"Conflict of Interest","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Declarations"}}]}}