This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomised controlled trials (RCT) and retrospective or prospective cohort studies reporting outcomes of surgical interventions performed for apical prolapse after hysterectomy. Systematic reviews, case reports, letters to editor, commentaries, educational articles, study protocols, non-comparative studies were excluded from our analysis. The identified studies were selected and reported in accordance with the updated Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (13).

Comparative studies including women of any age or ethnicity suffering from apical prolapse who opted for surgical management of their condition were included.

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to compare the outcomes of LSCP with two alternative surgical procedures for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse, namely VRP and ASCP. The selection of these comparators was based on their frequent utilization in clinical practice, the presence of pertinent studies for inclusion in our analysis, and the recent trend favouring minimally invasive surgical approaches.

It is worth emphasizing that the choice of comparators in this study was also guided by the current evidence, that highlighted a lack of comparisons of LSCP, VRP, and ASCP in women with a history of hysterectomy, suffering from prolapse of the apical compartment. Hence, through a meticulous and systematic search process, our objective was to identify studies that directly compared LSCP with either VRP or ASCP technique in this specific patient population. This approach aimed to ensure that the findings of our study would be relevant, applicable in clinical practice, and fill an important gap in the current clinical literature.

This study has been registered in the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (registration number CRD42023441528).

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google Scholar) from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. The search strategy included a combination of the following keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: “apical prolapse,” “vault prolapse,” “middle compartment prolapse,” “laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy,” “randomised controlled trial,” “RCT,” “randomized trial.” The terms were combined using logical operators such as ‘AND’ and ‘OR’ to retrieve relevant results. The records were deduplicated. Additional sources, such as reference lists of relevant articles were also searched to ensure comprehensive coverage of the literature through “snowballing technique.” This technique allowed the expansion of the initial list of selected articles by following the chain of citations and references to uncover more potentially relevant studies. The search process was not restricted based on language, allowing for the inclusion of studies published in any language.

A standardized data extraction form was used to extract relevant information from the included studies. The following data were collected: study characteristics (first author, publication year, study design, sample size, hysterectomy status) and type of surgical procedures that have been compared. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers, and any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus within the research team. Among the three surgical techniques compared, LSCP was considered the primary comparator. The other two techniques were VRP and ASCP. Studies that assessed the same surgical procedures were grouped together for the purpose of pooled analyses.

The statistical analyses for dichotomous and continuous data were conducted using Review Manager 5.4. The effect size of different surgical interventions for apical prolapse was presented as an odds ratio with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for dichotomous variables or as mean difference with a 95% CI for continuous data. The degree of heterogeneity among studies was assessed using the I² statistic. When substantial homogeneity was observed (I² < 50%), pooled summary statistics were calculated using fixed-effects models. In instances of notable heterogeneity (I² > 50%), random-effects models were utilized.

Following comprehensive searches of multiple databases, a total of 114 studies reporting outcomes of three distinct surgical techniques for vaginal vault prolapse were initially identified and considered potentially eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. After deduplication of records, 89 studies remained and were screened by title. Of those, 45 were excluded. The remaining 44 articles were sought for retrieval and screened by abstracts. Finally, after assessing eligibility based on the full-text articles, a total of 14 studies including 1,289 women were deemed eligible for the analysis. In one study, two arms were included, consisting of one RCT and one prospective cohort study (8). The inclusion process and the number of studies ultimately meeting the eligibility criteria are summarized in the Prisma Flow Diagram (Figure 1).

The characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1.

With the exception of one study (27), all the studies included in this review directly compared the outcomes of only two surgical techniques for vaginal vault prolapse. Okcu et al. conducted a study that compared the outcomes of three different procedures, namely LSCP, ASCP, and VRP (17). Among the included studies, five studies conducted comparisons between LSCP and VRP, while ten studies focused on comparing LSCP with ASCP.

Meta-analyses were conducted for those outcomes that were consistently reported across at least three primary studies in a comparable fashion.

For studies comparing LSCP with VRP, meta-analyses were carried out for the following outcomes: duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, blood loss, pelvic organ prolapse at follow-up, urinary symptoms at follow-up, dyspareunia, and Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) scores. Random effects forest plots (Figure 2) showed that only the duration of surgery significantly differ among those groups, LSCP lasting significantly longer than VRP (p < 0.0001).

The forest plots for the outcomes that did not yield significant differences between LSCP and VRP are shown in Figure 3.

Meta-analyses were conducted to assess the following outcomes when comparing LSCP with ASCP: duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, blood loss, haemorrhage, bladder/bowel injury, urinary symptoms at follow-up, pain, wound infection, ileus rates, pulmonary embolism (PE) /deep vein thrombosis (DVT), UDI and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire (IIQ) scores. The meta-analyses showed significant differences in terms of hospital stay (p < 0.00001), blood loss (p < 0.00001), pain (p = 0.02) and rates of postoperative ileus (p = 0.03). Women in the LSCP group had shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and pain, as well as lower rates of ileus (Figure 4).

For the remaining outcomes mentioned above, no statistically significant differences were found among the groups (Figure 5).

This meta-analysis encompasses evidence derived from both RCT, which are designed to minimize systematic errors, and from non-randomized studies, which may be more susceptible to bias. To evaluate the risk of bias as well as the quality of the included studies we used Critical Appraisals Skills Programme (CASP) tools for randomised and cohort studies (28, 29). Two researchers critically appraised the included studies. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion within the research team. Tables 2, 3 present CASP criteria for RCT and cohort studies.

As indicated in Table 2, blinding of both patients and medical professionals was unfeasible in the included RCTs due to the specific types of incisions required for each type of surgical procedure. Due to this valid rationale, none of the trials met the “blinding” criteria. Additionally, the presence of lost-to-follow-up patients contributed to another criterion that could not be met in terms of study quality by five out of six included RCTs. Another identified source of bias pertained to the precision of the reported estimate of the intervention or treatment effect.

Table 3 reveals that in the cohort studies, there were certain concerns raised regarding the accuracy of exposure measurement and the adequacy of follow-up length and completeness. Isolated concerns regarding potential confounding factors and the manner of cohort recruitment were also identified and highlighted in Table 3.

A variety of surgical approaches have been developed, optimised, and implemented to surgically treat vaginal apical prolapse (30). These include LSCP, open ASCP, as well as VRP. Each of these approaches offers distinct benefits compared to one another. Given that the LSCP has achieved the status of the current gold standard, primarily due to its high cure rates (31, 32), it is reasonable to synthesize data on this procedure as well as comparisons between LSCP and alternative surgical techniques.

This systematic review and meta-analysis offer valuable insights into the differences of pooled outcomes of LSCP compared to ASCP or VRP. Our analyses showed that LSCP does not have significant perioperative or long-term advantages over VRP performed for vaginal vault prolapse. Moreover, when compared with LSCP, VRP were associated with a significantly shorter duration of surgery (p < 0.0001). These data could render VRP particularly advantageous for elderly women with underlying health conditions. Published data supports the benefits of shorter operative time that include reduced anaesthesia time and surgical risks, enhanced patient comfort, faster recovery, reduced resource requirements, and improved surgical throughput (33). Since the operating time was longer for LSCP, one would expect more blood loss in those cases. However, our study showed that was not the case, as blood loss showed lower values in the LSCP group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance. It is plausible that reduced blood loss in case of laparoscopic procedures can be attributed to better visualisation, easier tissue manipulation and access (34, 35). Furthermore, the choice of anaesthesia may potentially influence blood loss outcomes. Nonetheless, it is essential to highlight that our review did not include data pertaining to the specific anaesthesia types employed for each procedure as not all the primary studies included documented this information.

Outcomes such as hospital stay, pelvic organ prolapse or urinary symptoms at follow-up, dyspareunia and UDI scores did not significantly differ between LSCP and VRP groups. However, some of these outcomes such as hospital stay showed significant differences between groups in individual studies (15, 17). The discrepancy between individual study results and pooled analyses can be attributed to various factors, such as study sample sizes, variability in patient populations, and study design differences.

On the other hand, this meta-analysis showed that when compared to ASCP, patients undergoing LSCP had significantly shorter hospital stay, less blood loss and pain, as well as lower ileus rates (p < 0.05). Most of the primary studies included in this analysis reported similar results, with the exception of one study (23). Klauschie et al. reported similar levels of pain in both ASCP and LSCP groups (23). However, when pooling multiple studies in a meta-analysis, the increased sample size enhances the statistical power to detect significant differences between the two surgical techniques.

Furthermore, this study indicated that the LSCP groups exhibited lower IIQ total scores, wound infection and bladder injury rates compared to the ASCP groups, but statistical significance was not achieved for those outcomes. Although individual studies might have shown significant differences between those outcomes, pooled analyses allowed the combination of data from multiple studies, mitigating the impact of individual study variations and providing a more comprehensive assessment of the overall effect.

Comparing these findings with those of other meta-analyses is challenging due to the variations in the inclusion criteria. Most reviews or meta-analyses evaluating surgical approaches for apical pelvic organ prolapse have included a broader population, encompassing both women post hysterectomy and those with a uterus (30, 36, 37) while our study included only women without a uterus. As a result, direct comparisons between our findings and those of previous meta-analyses were not straightforward.

The inclusion of only women with a history of hysterectomy is the most notable strength of our study, as it enhances the homogeneity of the target population. By focusing specifically on this subgroup, we were able to minimize potential confounding factors related to the presence or absence of a uterus. This targeted approach allows for a more precise analysis and interpretation of outcomes related to apical pelvic organ prolapse in women who have undergone hysterectomy. Consequently, our study provides valuable insights specific to this homogeneous population, which can contribute to a more accurate understanding of the effectiveness and safety of the studied interventions.

As the field of surgical approaches for vaginal vault prolapse continues to evolve, a few topics for future research and improvement can be identified. This meta-analysis provides valuable insights into the comparative effectiveness and safety of different surgical techniques. However, there are still areas that warrant further investigation to advance clinical practice and patient outcomes.

Firstly, given the increasing prevalence of robotic surgery, future studies should focus on comparing robotic procedures with the currently established laparoscopic techniques performed for vaginal vault prolapse. Robotic surgery offers potential advantages, and evaluating its outcomes and benefits in comparison to traditional laparoscopic approaches will help elucidate its role and potential benefits. Anticipated progress is not limited solely to the realm of robotics, as the laparoscopic field also shows promise. Techniques like vaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES) offer a hopeful outlook as a surgical solution for vaginal apical prolapse. By utilizing the vaginal pathway, this approach minimizes incisions and reduces the likelihood of scarring. This approach aligns with patient preferences for less noticeable surgical outcomes and quicker postoperative recovery. However, it is important to acknowledge that the successful adoption and progression of robotic surgery as well as vNOTES requires thorough training and expertise among surgeons. The goal should always be to tailor the surgical approach to the individual patient’s needs, rather than adhering strictly to a single method.

Secondly, long-term follow-up studies are needed to assess the durability of outcomes and the potential for recurrence or complications over time. While our meta-analysis included studies with various follow-up durations, extended, standardized, follow-up periods are crucial to determine the sustained effectiveness of different surgical interventions and provide more comprehensive information for both patients and healthcare providers.

Also, a standardized methodology to report outcomes and outcome measures is urgently needed to allow robust comparisons. Due to the high variety in outcome reporting by primary studies, our study only allowed comparisons of perioperative outcomes and of two, medium-and long-term outcome measures, namely UDI and IIQ. Although the primary papers included in this study evaluated various outcome measures such as The Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire (APFQ) (15), Defecation Distress Inventory (DDI) (15, 21), Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Function Questionnaire (PISQ) (8, 15, 17), Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) (18), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) (17), Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI) (17), and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI) (17), it was not feasible to conduct meta-analyses for those outcome measures because they were reported in isolated fashion, by only one or two studies. It is important to prioritize those outcomes in future studies to ensure that research is relevant to clinical practice.

Another interesting aspect arises from complications associated with mesh materials. In this study, we aimed to investigate the outcomes and complications associated with different suspension techniques in vaginal vault prolapse surgery. While we acknowledge the importance of examining graft-related complications and their comparative analysis between these techniques, it is crucial to note that our study’s focus was primarily on the specific outcomes and complications we could assess with the available data.

Graft-related complications represent an important area of concern in pelvic organ prolapse surgery, and their analysis could potentially provide valuable insights into the overall efficacy and safety of the suspension techniques. Unfortunately, due to limitations in data availability, we were unable to perform a comparative analysis of graft-related complications in this study.

We recognize this as a limitation of our work and believe that future research endeavours should prioritize the collection and analysis of data related to graft-related complications in the context of different suspension techniques.

Lastly, cost-effectiveness analyses are essential to evaluate the economic implications of various surgical approaches. Assessing the costs associated with different procedures, including initial costs, perioperative costs, and long-term follow-up costs, will aid in healthcare resource allocation and decision-making.

Several limitations of this meta-analysis should be acknowledged. Firstly, the analysis was limited to the available studies identified through the multiple database searches and snowballing process, and potential publication bias cannot be completely ruled out. Secondly, the included studies exhibited heterogeneity in terms of study design, which may have influenced the overall results and comparability. Additionally, the quality and reporting of the included studies varied, which could impact the reliability and generalizability of the findings. Finally, the limited number of studies available for some specific outcomes may have affected the power and precision of the pooled analyses.