HHS Public Access
Author manuscript
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Published in final edited form as:
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020 July ; 26(7): 415–424. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000803.
Design of a Three-Arm Randomized Trial for Post-Hysterectomy
Vault Prolapse involving Sacral Colpopexy, Transvaginal Mesh
and Native Tissue Apical Repair: the Apical Suspension Repair
for Vault Prolapse In a Three-Arm Randomized Trial (ASPIRe)
Author Manuscript
Shawn Menefee, MD1, Holly E. Richter, MD2, Deborah Myers, MD3, Alison Weidner, MD4,
Pamela Moalli, MD5, Heidi Harvie, MD6, David Rahn, MD7, Peter Jeppson, MD8, Marie
Paraiso, MD9, Sonia Thomas, DrPH10, Donna Mazloomdoost, MD11 NICHD Pelvic Floor
Disorders Network
1Division
of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, Kaiser Permanente San Diego, San Diego, CA
2Division
of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
3The
Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, Brown University, Providence, RI
4Division
Author Manuscript
of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Medical
Center, Durham, NC
5Women’s
Center for Bladder and Pelvic Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and
Reproductive Sciences, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University
of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA
6Division
of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and
Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA
7Division
of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of TexasSouthwestern, Dallas, TX
8The
Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New
Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
Author Manuscript
9Center
for Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Obstetrics, Gynecology and
Women’s Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH
10RTI
International, Research Triangle Park, NC
11Eunice
Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda,
MD.
Corresponding Author: Shawn Menefee, MD, Kaiser Permanente San Diego, 3250 Fordham Street, San Diego, California 92131,
shawn.a.menefee@kp.org.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0276973
Menefee et al.
Page 2
Abstract
Author Manuscript
Objective—To present the design of the Apical Suspension Repair for Vault Prolapse in a ThreeArm Randomized Trial (ASPIRe) which compares the efficacy and safety of three apical repairs:
native tissue transvaginal repair, transvaginal mesh, and sacral colpopexy.
Author Manuscript
Methods—Patient selection criteria, primary and secondary outcome measures including patientreported outcome questionnaires, masking, surgeon certification, procedure standardization,
adverse events collection and adjudication, and cost analysis will be described for this multicentered randomized trial. Given the unique risks/ benefits of each technique, a non-inferiority
design will be used to compare apical transvaginal mesh to mesh sacral colpopexy. A superiority
design will be used to compare the two mesh repairs to native tissue transvaginal apical repair.
Survival analysis will be used to assess a composite primary outcome for success composed of a
subjective measure (no prolapse symptoms), objective measure (no prolapse beyond the hymen)
and no prolapse retreatment, with a minimum follow up of 36 months. Secondary outcome
measures collected every 6 months include assessment of validated general and condition-specific
quality of life measures, global impression of improvement, satisfaction and regret, body image,
and sexual function.
Results—Randomization and surgical treatment of 360 participants is complete and the study is
in the follow-up phase.
Conclusions—This report will provide valuable insight on the design of a novel 3-arm surgical
trial utilizing mesh versus native tissue to repair vaginal vault prolapse. This trial will provide level
1 evidence on the risks and benefits of mesh augmented versus native tissue apical repairs.
Keywords
Author Manuscript
pelvic organ prolapse; vaginal vault prolapse; sacrospinous ligament suspension; transvaginal
mesh; sacral colpopexy; randomized controlled trial
Introduction
Author Manuscript
After conservative treatment fails or is declined, many women consider surgical
management for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Post-hysterectomy apical vaginal vault
prolapse (VVP) can be surgically managed with a variety of techniques and approaches
ranging from transvaginal obliterative procedures to transvaginal or transabdominal
reconstructive procedures with or without the use of biologic grafts or synthetic mesh.
Native tissue (NT) apical vaginal repairs including sacrospinous ligament suspension
(SSLS) and uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) have demonstrated adequate reliability
for improving subjective symptoms, however many pelvic reconstructive surgeons have
concerns about procedural durability, acceptable success rates with advanced prolapse, and
recurrence of anterior and/or posterior compartment prolapse.
Native tissue (NT) transvaginal repairs have uncommon complications including ureteral
injury, foreshortened vagina, or restriction of the vaginal caliber.1,2 Transvaginal mesh
(TVM) repairs are associated with improved anatomic success rates in the anterior
compartment compared to NT repairs, but there are concerns regarding risks of vaginal pain,
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 3
Author Manuscript
reoperation for mesh exposure, and lack of evidence that mesh results in better subjective
outcomes.2,3 In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued post-market
surveillance study orders for companies making transvaginal mesh kits for prolapse citing
concerns with safety and efficacy. Following the FDA announcement, TVM techniques
evolved to use lighter weight mesh, less material to decrease mesh load, trocar-free
techniques, and alterations in incision location with deeper dissection planes. Published
reports in 2011–2012 suggest that complication rates for TVM procedures had declined to
an average of 5% (ranging from 1.5% – 17% across studies), with reoperation rates < 13%,
and anatomic and comparable subjective success rates > 90%.4 These short- term results are
encouraging, but longer-term results (≥36 months) are needed to consider the relative risks
and benefits of these procedures. The need for longer term results has become more critical
since the implementation of this trial in February 2016 given the FDA’s reclassification of
TVM kits to class III in 2016 and the requirement for manufacturers to submit premarket
approval applications. In April 2019, the lack of the 36 month safety and efficacy data
comparing TVM to NT repairs resulted in the FDA ordering a halt to the sale and
distribution of TVM kits within the United States. 5
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Sacral colpopexy (SC) utilizing mesh has been considered the most durable procedure for
VVP with comparable short-term success rates demonstrated for open, laparoscopic and
robotic approaches.6–8 Over 300 published reports and systematic reviews cite low rates of
mesh erosion (<5%) and dyspareunia (<5%) and high rates of short term success (90–95%).1
Compared to vaginal approaches, SC procedures have longer operative times, higher
associated costs, and more potential major adverse events (bowel injury, post-operative
bowel obstruction, and sacral osteomyelitis) given that intraperitoneal access is required.9,10
Long-term outcomes beyond seven years are less encouraging with reports of mesh erosion
rates of up to 10% and prolapse recurrence rates of 24–48%, depending on the definition of
failure.11
The ASPIRe trial design including selection criteria, primary and secondary outcomes, study
measures, standardization, and evaluation of unique design and exploratory outcome
measures will be described.
Methods
Study Design
Author Manuscript
The ASPIRe trial is being conducted by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)-sponsored Pelvic Floor Disorders Network
(PFDN). The primary aims of this study are to determine if TVM is non-inferior to mesh SC
for correction of post-hysterectomy VVP and to decide if mesh-reinforced repairs performed
by abdominal or vaginal approaches are superior to NT vaginal repair. If TVM is found noninferior to SC, the superiority of TVM to SC will also be determined. Participants were
randomized to one of the three surgical treatments for VVP. The hypothesis is two-fold: (1)
treatment success with vaginally placed mesh is non-inferior compared to abdominally
placed mesh for VVP, with a hazard ratio of failure no higher than 1.93 and (2) mesh repairs
(regardless of route) are superior to NT apical vaginal suspension. The primary outcome,
which will be measured at a minimum of 36 months and a maximum of 60 months, is time
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 4
Author Manuscript
until treatment failure utilizing a composite outcome comprised of objective (prolapse past
the hymen), subjective (bothersome bulge symptoms based on Question 3 of the Pelvic
Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20))12, or prolapse retreatment using a survival analysis.
Author Manuscript
Secondary outcomes are comprised of anatomic and functional measures obtained through
patient -reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, including prolapse, urinary, bowel, sexual,
body image, and health related quality of life. Given concerns with synthetic mesh safety,
adverse events, pain and complications related to mesh and sutures are reported. Objective
measures using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system will be obtained at
6-month intervals for 5 years. While the leading edge of prolapse is used definition of
objective success, POP-Q points Ba, Bp, and C will be compared across all groups. The
study will assess multiple baseline factors to characterize risk factors associated with failure.
Given the additional costs of mesh and variation in operative times, the study will also
include a cost effectiveness analysis to evaluate cost of care relative to gains in health
utilities and quality of life. ASPIRe was registered with Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02676973)
prior to patient enrollment.
Study Population
Author Manuscript
Adult women (>21 years) with symptomatic post-hysterectomy vaginal vault (apical)
prolapse beyond the hymen and with the vaginal vault (apex) descending into at least the
lower two thirds of the vagina were eligible for participation if they desired surgical
management. To be included, women must have indicated a ‘sensation of bulging’ or
‘something falling out’ on Question 3 of the PFDI-20.12 Table 1 provides the inclusion and
exclusion criteria of this study. A subset of the participants who are ≥65 years of age will
undergo preoperative frailty and mobility assessments.13 This protocol adheres to the
Consolidation Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for performing and
reporting randomized controlled trials.14 Women who were eligible but declined enrollment
will be characterized consistent with the CONSORT requirements.
Baseline Assessments
Once eligibility was confirmed, baseline information was obtained and include
demographics (age, race/ethnicity, marital status, education), medical history (obstetric
history, prior POP or urinary incontinence treatment, estrogen status, smoking history,
diabetes mellitus diagnosis, previous urinary tract infection, current medication use),
physical examination (height, weight, POP-Q measurements), and PRO measures as noted in
the timeline outlined in Table 2.
Author Manuscript
Randomization
After participant eligibility was determined and consent obtained, randomization was
performed with the goal to schedule surgery within 6 weeks. Randomization in the operating
room was not feasible because of the unique equipment and availability necessary to
perform minimally invasive SC.
Randomization occurred in a ratio of 1:1:1 for each treatment arm. This was performed
using a permuted blocks block size known only to the Data Coordinating Center (DCC) and
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 5
Author Manuscript
stratified by site and age category (<65 and ≥65). For each participant, the web-based system
determined the treatment allocation from a static randomization table developed by the study
randomization statistician prior to the start of the study. Only the study statistician and
randomization system programmer had access to the randomization table, thereby
minimizing the risk of selection bias. In response to the April 16, 2019 FDA order to halt the
sale and distribution of TVM within the United States, study enrollment was stopped within
a few patients of completion and the protocol was amended to halt randomization into the
TVM arm. At the time, 18 enrolled participants were awaiting surgery. Those remaining
patients that had been randomized to TVM were re-randomized to receive either SC or NT
in a 1:1 ratio.
Study Masking/ Unmasking
Author Manuscript
Participants were masked to the allocated treatment approach until completion of surgery.
Participant masking after surgery was not feasible because participants receiving SC will
have abdominal incisions. Although participants were unmasked after surgery, bias in
assessing the objective portion of the primary outcome was minimized, by having masked,
non-surgeons investigators examine and determine the POP-Q measures and identify
complications.
Surgeon Certification and Standardization of the Surgical Procedures
Author Manuscript
All ASPIRe study surgeons were board-eligible or certified in Female Pelvic Medicine &
Reconstructive Surgery and were experienced with all three approaches, having conducted a
prerequisite minimum number of cases for each procedure. Certification criteria ensured that
all study surgeries were performed by surgeons who were trained on each procedure to
assure study validity, while at the same time establishing standards for the trial that will
allow the results to be generalized to other surgeons. Certification requirements are outlined
in Table 3. Trainees were incorporated into surgical cases as per the local guidelines at each
clinical site.
The NT arm of the trial allowed for either a USLS or SSLS procedure, thereby providing
generalizability across study sites. Based on the OPTIMAL trial, these procedures
demonstrated similar outcomes.2,15 The techniques for both have been previously described.
16
For the apical TVM arm, the Uphold Lite® (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA) was
utilized given prior PFDN experience with this technique/device in a previous trial.17
Author Manuscript
The SC arm permitted either open, laparoscopic or robotic approaches. The use of any SC
approach improved generalizability; however, essential portions of the procedure were
standardized in the trial. All procedures are illustrated in Figures 1,2 and 3 with standardized
techniques outlined in Table 4. If during the randomized surgery the surgeon encountered
anatomic findings which prevented the safe completion of that procedure, the surgeon
selected between the other two study surgeries.
Other operative rules included: 1) cystoscopy with assessment of ureteral efflux was
required after completion of the vault suspension. 2) All concomitant, non-index surgical
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 6
Author Manuscript
procedures (planned and unplanned) were recorded. The surgeon had the discretion to alter
the preoperative plan to achieve the desired anatomic result with such alterations being
recorded. 3) Anterior and posterior colporrhaphies were performed at the discretion of the
operating surgeon such that points Ba and Bp were ≤−1 cm at the end of the procedure.
Colporrhaphies were performed using either 2–0 or 0 delayed absorbable sutures. 4) Fulllength mid-urethral slings (MUS)—either transobturator or retropubic—were used in all
study groups per - surgeon discretion.
Because MUS have not been shown to provide additional distal anterior vaginal wall support
for patients undergoing laparoscopic SC, they were chosen so as not to influence the primary
outcome.18 In contrast, an association with increased anatomic prolapse failures was
identified in women undergoing retropubic urethropexy.19 Thus, full-length MUS were the
preferred intervention to address stress urinary incontinence.
Author Manuscript
Other measures—Intraoperative measures/events including mean operative time,
estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, intra-operative complications by organ system and
any additional treatment related to an adverse event (AE) was collected. Intra-operative and
immediate postoperative adverse events were recorded by the surgeon and categorized using
a modified Dindo Classification.
Author Manuscript
At follow-up visits, instruments assessing the primary and secondary outcomes will be
administered as outlined in Tables # 2 and 5. A physical examination by a masked nonsurgeon will be performed to assess anatomic outcomes, and to evaluate for mesh exposures
and erosions. The presence of other AEs will be determined by directed questioning, PRO
questionnaires, and chart review. Specific guidelines for AE data collection can be found in
Table #6. AEs that occur during the study period will be recorded on case report forms.
Failure of the study interventions to adequately treat prolapse based on the composite
definition of failure, new onset stress and urgency urinary incontinence and fecal
incontinence will be captured by PRO endpoint measures and will not be recorded as an AE.
While the objective and subjective definition of failure is based on specific points, the
decision for re-treatment with either pessary or repeat prolapse surgery will be by shared
decision making between the patient and her surgeon. An AE adjudication committee,
masked to clinical site, will provide oversight on consistency of collection and designation
of AEs.
Author Manuscript
Economic Evaluation and Analysis—A cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted
from a health care sector perspective, and the analysis will be expressed as incremental cost
required to produce one additional unit of quality-adjusted life year (QALY). QALYs will be
calculated from the SF-6D preference-based utility index algorithm derived from the SF-12
instrument.20 Data on each participant’s use of medical and non-medical resources will be
collected during the follow-up period.
Additional Exploratory Aim: Global Composite Outcome—Success, failure, and
AEs may be defined differently by surgeons and patients based upon goals and expectations.
It is critical to measure patient perspective and to assess how complications and negative
outcomes are interpreted and valued by patients. Currently, the impact of AEs on patients’
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 7
Author Manuscript
perception of surgical success and failure regarding POP is not known. The Decision Regret
Scale (DRS) and Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SDS) are patient-centered outcome
measures that have demonstrated good psychometric properties in numerous patient
populations and they have been adapted and validated for pelvic floor disorders (DRS-PFD
and SDS-PFD).21–23
An exploratory aim of this trial will be to evaluate the use of patient centered outcomes
using DRS-PFD and SDS-PFD, utility scales (SF-6D), PGI-I, and AEs to determine if a
valid and reliable patient centered global composite outcome can be developed to reliably
evaluate these important factors.
STATISTICAL DESIGN
Sample Size/Power Calculations
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Sample size calculations were generated under the assumptions that the study would have an
overall Type I error rate of 0.05, utilizing a randomization ratio of 1:1:1, and that the Type I
error (alpha) would be distributed among the following three hypotheses: 1) apical TVM is
non-inferior to mesh SC (alpha 0.03); 2) SC is superior to native tissue repair (alpha 0.01);
3) apical TVM repair is superior to NT apical repair (alpha 0.01). The sample size estimates
also assumed that the primary analyses will be based on a survival analysis model with a 2year recruitment period and a follow-up period with a minimum of 3 years and a maximum
of 5 years; that lost to follow-up on each arm will be no more than 5% per year; that the 2year success rates for SC and TVM repair will be 80%; and that the 2-year success rate for
NT will be 60%. These 2-year success rates represent hazards of 0.1116 and 0.2554,
respectively, under the assumption that the failures follow an exponential survival model.
For the non-inferiority hypothesis, analyses assume a two-year 15% margin; this noninferiority margin corresponds to a hazard ratio of 1.93.
Author Manuscript
Based on these assumptions, the hypothesis test requiring the largest number of participants,
that will determine the overall study sample size, is the evaluation of non-inferiority
regarding TVM versus SC. A sample size of 121 participants per arm will provide 85%
power to demonstrate non-inferiority. Assuming that 121 participants will be randomized to
NT repair, the overall sample size of 363 participants will provide > 93% power to
demonstrate that each of the mesh augmented arms is superior to native tissue repair.
Because randomization occurred prior to scheduling the surgery, some randomized
participants did not receive surgery as a consequence of patient-related events occurring
after randomization. To maintain planned power, randomization was to be continued until a
total of 363 patients were randomized and treated. Because of the FDA order regarding
TVM, enrollment was stopped, resulting in a final sample size of 360 randomized and
treated participants. The design modification excluding TVM for the last 18 participants is
expected to have minimal impact on the planned statistical power, while the actual
recruitment period of 36 months increases the power.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 8
Data Analysis
Author Manuscript
Although participants will be followed up to 5 years, the primary analysis is scheduled to
occur after the last treated participant has completed 3 years of follow-up. Primary statistical
evaluations for superiority will follow a modified intent-to-treat approach and this will
exclude participants who were randomized but never received surgery due to patient-specific
reasons unrelated to the randomized treatment. Primary evaluations of non-inferiority will
follow a per-protocol approach, and this will further exclude all participants with a major
protocol violation related to the index surgery such as receiving a surgery other than what
was intended with randomization. AE rates will be evaluated for all randomized participants
who received one of the three study surgeries, and they will be grouped by the surgery
actually received.
Author Manuscript
Composite failure rates will be compared using interval censored piecewise proportional
hazards survival analysis. For each analysis population, a single model will be used to
generate four hypothesis tests. The first test will compare the hazard ratio of the TVM to the
SC arm against the hypothesized non-inferiority margin of 1.93 (using a 1-sided test of alpha
0.03), followed by a test of superiority if non-inferiority is shown (using a 2-sided test of
alpha 0.03). The other two hypothesis tests will compare the hazard ratio of TVM and SC,
respectively, to NT repair against the hypothesized null ratio of 1.0 (using 2-sided tests of
alpha 0.01). All model-based analyses will include terms for site and age category (<65 and
≥65) stratification parameters used in the randomization.
Author Manuscript
Treatment groups will be compared for secondary efficacy measures collected across visits
using linear mixed models for continuous outcomes and generalized linear models for binary
measures, and this will account for missing data due to differential follow-up time associated
with the primary design. Details of all planned analyses will be documented in a statistical
analysis plan prior to database lock.
Unique Study Design Issues
Similar to the SUPeR trial, potential physician and patient bias against TVM, with the
potential perception of commercial bias were taken into account.24 Regarding the general
considerations and rationale for designing and performing clinical trials that evaluate TVM,
we refer readers to the SUPeR methods paper which provides this reasoning.24
Considerations specific to ASPiRe are discussed below.
Author Manuscript
Physician preference against transvaginal mesh—At the time of study
development, surveys indicated that many urogynecologists were still performing mesh
augmented vaginal procedures, and this demonstrated continued relevance of the ASPIRe
trial. All participants in ASPIRe had prior pelvic surgery and it is anticipated that many will
have had prior POP surgery. The use of mesh for recurrent symptomatic prolapse is
commonly accepted by physicians and professional organizations compared to the use of
TVM for primary prolapse operations.
Participant bias—It was thought that evidence-based counseling regarding the risks and
benefits of the three commonly performed surgical options offered in this trial, without an
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 9
Author Manuscript
emphasis on identifying which surgery is “best”, will help assuage potential patient bias. In
addition, it was thought that patients with VVP will have less bias than the general
population, especially if they had prior POP surgery, since many patients in clinical practice
elect for mesh augmented repairs to treat recurrent POP.
Perception of commercial bias—In this trial, no external industry funding was sought
or utilized. At the time of this trial, Uphold LITE was the only commercially available TVM
“kit” available.
Author Manuscript
FDA announcements related to transvaginal mesh—At the time of development of
this trial, there was a need to collect high-quality information related to TVM for prolapse
and the PFDN responded by including a TVM arm in the ASPIRe trial. As this trial initiated
enrollment in 2016, the FDA reclassified surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of pelvic
organ prolapse into class III and required premarket approval (PMA) applications for
manufacturers of TVM kits. This announcement increased the difficulty of enrolling
participants into a randomized surgical trial, and this likely resulted in prolonged recruitment
phase beyond the anticipated 2-year duration. In addition, prior to complete enrollment of
the trial the FDA ordered all TVM manufacturers on April 16, 2019 to stop selling and
distributing their products immediately.5 Given these events, the PFDN steering committee
elected to halt the surgical randomization to the TVM arm. The PFDN was masked to the
number of participants who were randomized to each arm of the study during this
discussion.
Data and Safety Monitoring Board
Author Manuscript
The Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD has a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) to
oversee this study. Members of the DSMB are independent of the study investigators and
they include representatives within urology, urogynecology, and those with biostatistics
expertise, and a lay member. The DSMB has regularly scheduled meetings. This protocol
was approved by the DSMB prior to recruitment initiation. The DSMB monitors study
progress and can recommend that the trial be stopped for safety. There were no plans to stop
for either futility or efficacy.
Results
Participants were enrolled from February 28, 2016 to April 16, 2019 at 9 PFDN study sites.
Randomization and surgical treatment of 360 participants is complete and the study is in the
follow-up phase.
Author Manuscript
Discussion
Surgical correction of the vaginal apex at the time of a prolapse procedure is critical for
optimizing all vaginal compartment anatomic outcomes.25 The procedure associated with
the best anatomical outcomes, lowest complication rates and highest patient satisfaction in
women with VVP is unknown. To that end, a three-arm, multi-center, prospective,
randomized trial was designed to compare the outcomes of three commonly performed
procedure approaches used to treat VVP.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 10
Author Manuscript
Native tissue repairs for VVP remain a commonly used surgical technique. The OPTIMAL
study, a large randomized trial that evaluated two commonly performed NT surgeries that
treat apical compartment prolapse, SSLS and USL, demonstrated similar anatomic success
rates at 2 years and extended follow-up did not a demonstrate statistically significant
difference between the two techniques. As such, both apical NT techniques were allowed in
this protocol.
Author Manuscript
With both the 2011 FDA warning and the associated escalation in litigation, some mesh
manufactures removed vaginal mesh products from the market.2,15 Given both the
recommendation by multiple professional organizations and the FDA regarding the need for
further research on the outcomes of TVM procedures and the potential for mesh augmented
repairs to improve outcomes compared to NT repairs, a TVM treatment arm was included.
When the trial was initiated, there was only one commercially available apical TVM kit. A
free hand synthetic mesh option was considered during trial design, but this option lacked
standardization, network experience, and adequate safety and efficacy outcomes.
Sacral colpopexy has long been considered the gold standard for VVP.26 However, the use of
contemporary composite outcomes showing both higher rates of failure mesh exposure raise
concern as to whether SC has the durability and long-term safety to be considered the gold
standard operation for apical prolapse.11
Author Manuscript
Approaches for SC range from open to laparoscopic to robotic. It is commonly accepted that
all approaches result in similar long-term anatomic and subjective success rates. Although
SC performed through a minimally invasive approach allows for direct comparisons of
hospital stay and postoperative pain levels to vaginal approaches, there was concern that
restricting the approach would impact recruitment by limiting the number of surgeons and
thereby limiting generalizability.
While the use of synthetic mesh to reinforce apical prolapse repair is believed to reduce
failure rates and improve durability, the potential for repeat surgical procedures for mesh
related morbidity and increased surgical complexity must be weighed for these procedures.
The current study considers all these factors with comprehensive collection of AEs, pain,
body image and sexual function assessments at regular intervals.
Author Manuscript
There are unique issues of interest related to the current study design. In terms of
characterizing the differences in outcome of the mesh arms, the use of one-sided testing
using a non-inferiority approach provided a feasible sample size to allow the determination
of whether TVM is non-inferior or inferior to SC for composite success, and whether TVM
is superior to SC. The resulting sample size also provides a greater than 90% power to
determine if each mesh arm outcome is superior to NT transvaginal repair.
Other important lessons were learned from designing the ASPIRe trial: 1) the three-arm
design of the trial increased the complexity of the trial design and recruitment; however, it
allowed the evaluation of three unique surgical approaches within a single surgical trial; 2)
such trials likely require multi-center networks with established infrastructures and
experienced investigators and 3) randomized surgical trials in which participants are initially
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 11
Author Manuscript
masked are difficult to perform and 4) flexibility in the range of surgical procedures
performed in clinical practice improves surgeon acceptance.
The increased media attention and controversy on vaginal mesh and the and the FDA’s
reclassification of TVM could have made recruitment into this randomized trial more
difficult, thereby prolonging the enrollment period; however, the acceptance of TVM for
POP repair at the time of protocol development made including a TVM arm essential.
Uncontrollable external factors including the FDA order to stop the sales and distribution of
TVM that occurred near study completion required modification of the trial prior to
completion of randomization.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
A limitation of this trial included difficulty with recruitment into a three-arm trial. Because
of the unique operative room requirements of SC, it was not feasible to randomize subjects
in the operating room; however, study subjects were masked to their procedure until after it
had been performed reducing the probability of patients dropping out prior to their surgical
procedure. Given the allowed approaches (abdominal versus vaginal), the addition of sham
incisions was not deemed appropriate for participants in the vaginal approach groups. Thus,
postoperative masking of the participants was not a credible option. While this has the
potential to increase bias towards or against mesh-based repairs on subjective outcomes, the
personnel performing the physical examinations in follow-up were masked to the surgical
procedures, thereby eliminating bias from objective assessments. The choice to halt
enrollment into the TVM arm after the April 2019 FDA order may potentially impact study
power of the study outcomes involving TVM. Yet, by designing the trial using a survival
analysis with follow-up ranging from 36 to 60 months and increasing enrollment duration
from 24 months to 36 months will likely off set the potential of not reaching the anticipated
sample size in the TVM arm.
Strengths of this study include the ability to study three different approaches to apical VVP
repair, thus allowing variation within each group and standardization of critical portions of
each procedure. The three-arm study design affords a large randomized prospective surgical
trial with a relatively long-term outcome instead of three individual clinical trials, thereby
decreasing study costs and reducing the number of subjects required. This study involves
only women with VVP allowing the evaluation of these differing approaches without the
impact of hysterectomy on efficacy and safety of these procedures.
Author Manuscript
In summary, surgeries addressing the vaginal apex in women with VVP have unique
advantages and risks. With women increasingly seeking care for this condition, there is a
critical need for level 1 data describing pertinent objective and subjective outcomes and
complications in a robust and unbiased manner.
Acknowledgments
Supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(U10 HD041261, U10 HD069013, U10 HD054214, U10 HD054215, U10 HD041267, U10 HD069025, U10
HD069010, U10 HD069006, U01 HD069031) and the National Institutes of Health Office of Research on Women’s
Health.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 12
Author Manuscript
References
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
1. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women
In: Maher C, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons,
Ltd; 2013:CD004014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5
2. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, et al. Comparison of 2 Transvaginal Surgical Approaches and
Perioperative Behavioral Therapy for Apical Vaginal Prolapse. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1023.
doi:10.1001/jama.2014.1719 [PubMed: 24618964]
3. Sung VW, Rogers RG, Schaffer JI, et al. Graft Use in Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair.
Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(5):1131–1142. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181898ba9 [PubMed:
18978116]
4. Krlin RM, Murphy AM, Goldman HB. Pro: the contemporary use of transvaginal mesh in surgery
for pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol. 2012;22(4):282–286. doi:10.1097/
MOU.0b013e32835459a7 [PubMed: 22617055]
5. Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh Implants | FDA https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/implants-andprosthetics/urogynecologic-surgical-mesh-implants.
6. Siddiqui NY, Geller EJ, Visco AG. Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and
abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(5):435.e1–435.e5. doi:10.1016/
j.ajog.2012.01.035 [PubMed: 22397900]
7. Paraiso MFR, Walters MD, Rackley RR, Melek S, Hugney C. Laparoscopic and abdominal sacral
colpopexies: a comparative cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1752–1758.
doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.051 [PubMed: 15902189]
8. Paraiso MFR, Jelovsek JE, Frick A, Chen CCG, Barber MD. Laparoscopic Compared With Robotic
Sacrocolpopexy for Vaginal Prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(5):1005–1013. doi:10.1097/
AOG.0b013e318231537c [PubMed: 21979458]
9. Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1815–1833. doi:10.1007/
s00192-013-2172-1 [PubMed: 24142057]
10. Diwadkar GB, Barber MD, Feiner B, Maher C, Jelovsek JE. Complication and Reoperation Rates
After Apical Vaginal Prolapse Surgical Repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2, Part 1):367–373.
doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318195888d [PubMed: 19155908]
11. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term Outcomes Following Abdominal
Sacrocolpopexy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016. doi:10.1001/
jama.2013.4919 [PubMed: 23677313]
12. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive
condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet
Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1388–1395. doi:10.1067/mob.2001.118659 [PubMed: 11744914]
13. Erekson EA, Fried TR, Martin DK, Rutherford TJ, Strohbehn K, Bynum JPW. Frailty, cognitive
impairment, and functional disability in older women with female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int
Urogynecol J. 2015;26(6):823–830. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2596-2 [PubMed: 25516232]
14. Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled
trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA. 1996;276(8):637–639. [PubMed: 8773637]
15. Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, 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(15):1554. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.2827
[PubMed: 29677302]
16. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Menefee S, et al. Operations and pelvic muscle training in the
management of apical support loss (OPTIMAL) trial: Design and methods. Contemp Clin Trials.
2009;30(2):178–189. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2008.12.001 [PubMed: 19130903]
17. Vu MK, Letko J, Jirschele K, et al. Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial
anatomical and subjective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(12):1753–1761. doi:10.1007/
s00192-012-1780-5 [PubMed: 22531956]
18. McDermott CD, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. The effect of tension-free vaginal tape
placement on distal anterior vaginal wall support at the time of laparoscopic sacral
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 13
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
colpoperineopexy. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011;283(6):1303–1307. doi:10.1007/
s00404-010-1536-8 [PubMed: 20544213]
19. Shull B, Sarsotti CJ, Walters M. Evaluation and management of complete vaginal eversion after
retropubic urethropexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2007. doi:10.1007/s00192-007-0427-4
20. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med
Care. 2004;42(9):851–859. [PubMed: 15319610]
21. Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, et al. Validation of a Decision Regret Scale. Med Decis
Mak. 2003;23(4):281–292. doi:10.1177/0272989X03256005
22. Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, et al. Patient Satisfaction with Health Care Decisions. Med
Decis Mak. 1996;16(1):58–64. doi:10.1177/0272989X9601600114
23. Sung VW, Kauffman N, Raker CA, Myers DL, Clark MA. Validation of decision-making outcomes
for female pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):575.e1–575.e6. doi:10.1016/
j.ajog.2007.12.035 [PubMed: 18313632]
24. Nager CW, Zyczynski H, Rogers RG, et al. The Design of a Randomized Trial of Vaginal Surgery
for Uterovaginal Prolapse: Vaginal Hysterectomy With Native Tissue Vault Suspension Versus
Mesh Hysteropexy Suspension (The Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial).
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(4):182–189. doi:10.1097/SPV.0000000000000270
[PubMed: 27054798]
25. Hsu Y, Chen L, Summers A, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JOL, DeLancey JOL. Anterior vaginal
wall length and degree of anterior compartment prolapse seen on dynamic MRI. Int Urogynecol J
Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(1):137–142. doi:10.1007/s00192-007-0405-x [PubMed:
17579801]
26. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: A comprehensive review.
Obstet Gynecol. 2004. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000139514.90897.07
27. Barber MD, Janz N, Kenton K, et al. Validation of the surgical pain scales in women undergoing
pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelv Med Reconstr Surg 2012;18:198–204.
28. Brazier JE, Roberts J. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-12. Med
Care 2004;42:851–859. [PubMed: 15319610]
29. Brehaut JC, O’Connor AM, Wood TJ, et al. Validation of a decision regret scale. Med Decis
Making 2003;23:281–292. [PubMed: 12926578]
30. Holmes-Rovner M, Kroll J, Schmitt N, et al. Patient satisfaction with health care decisions. Med
Decis Making 1996;16:58–64. [PubMed: 8717600]
31. Nager CW, Zyczynski H, Rogers RG, et al. The design of a randomized trial of vaginal surgery for
uterovaginal prolapse: vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue vault suspension versus mesh
hysteropexy suspension (the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures Randomized Trial). Female
Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2016;22:182–189. [PubMed: 27054798]
32. Hsu Y, Chen L, Summers A, et al. Anterior vaginal wall length and degree of anterior compartment
prolapse seen on dynamic MRI. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008;19:137–142.
[PubMed: 17579801]
33. Jelovsek JE, Barber MD, Brubaker L, 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. [PubMed: 29677302]
34. Nygaard IE, McCreery R, Brubaker L, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review.
Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:805–823. [PubMed: 15458906]
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 14
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 15
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 16
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 17
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Figures 1–3:
Illustrations depicting the 3 apical approaches being compared in ASPIRe randomized trial.
1. Native Tissue Options: A. Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension and B. Uterosacral
Ligament Suspension
2. Apical Transvaginal Mesh
3. Sacral Colpopexy
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 18
Table 1:
Author Manuscript
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in the ASPIRe Trial
Inclusion Criteria
1. Women age 21 or older
2. Prior total hysterectomy (no cervix present)
3. Prolapse beyond the hymen (defined as Ba, C, or Bp > 0 cm)
4. Vaginal cuff descent into at least the lower two thirds of the vagina (defined as point C> −2/3 TVL)
5. Bothersome bulge symptoms as indicated on question 3 of the PFDI-20 form relating to ‘sensation of bulging’ or ‘something falling out’
6. Desires surgical treatment for post-hysterectomy vaginal prolapse
7. Available for up to 60 month follow-up
Exclusion Criteria
1. Previous synthetic material or biologic grafts (placed vaginally or abdominally) to augment prolapse repair including anterior, posterior
and/or apical compartments
Author Manuscript
2. Known previous formal SSLS performed for either uterovaginal or post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse *
3. Known adverse reaction to synthetic mesh or biological grafts; these complications include but are not limited to erosion, fistula, or abscess
4. Unresolved active chronic pelvic pain
5. Prior abdominal or pelvic radiation
6. Contraindication to any of the index surgical procedures
a. Known Horseshoe Kidney or Pelvic Mass overlying the sacrum
b. Active diverticular abscess or diverticulitis
c. Shortened vaginal length (<6 cm TVL)
*
NOTE:
• Mesh used for only mid-urethral sling will NOT be an exclusion.
• Only documented SSLS will be an exclusion.
Author Manuscript
• If prior POP repair is unknown and unable to be documented, subjects will be eligible based on clinician judgment.
SSLS, sacrospinous ligament suspension; TVL, total vaginal length
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Table # 2:
MEASURE
SCREEN
BASELINE
PERIOP
6 WK
6M
−1 wk /
+2wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
6–60 Month Masked
Evaluator Assessment
(includes POP-Q and
Complications
Assessment)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Retreatment and
Complications
Assessments Unmasked
(6–60 month visit form)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Window (+/− wk)
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Eligibility/ Consent
X
Medical History
X
Randomization
X
Physical Exam (height,
weight and PVR)
X
Surgeon’s Report and
Hospitalization
30 M
36 M
42 M
48 M
54 M
60 M
X
X
6 Week Unmasked
Evaluator Assessment
(includes Complications
Assessment)
X
6 Week Postoperative
Recovery Assessment
X
AE Review
X
Exams for Mesh
Exposure
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Q 2 weeks if need for continuous catheterization post 6-Week Visit
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Page 19
Catheterization FollowUp*
Functional Activity Scale
24 M
X
Study Surgery Status
Non-Pain Med Collection
18 M
X
Demographics
POP-Q for Inclusion
Criteria Unmasked Staff
12 M
Menefee et al.
Timeline of Events
Author Manuscript
BASELINE
6 WK
6M
12 M
−1 wk /
+2wks
+/−
6wks
+/−
6wks
18 M
+/−
6wks
24 M
+/−
6wks
30 M
+/−
6wks
36 M
+/−
6wks
42 M
+/−
6wks
48 M
+/−
6wks
54 M
+/−
6wks
60 M
+/−
6wks
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Surgical Pain Scale
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Body Part Pain Score
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PFDI-20 (includes
POPDI-6, CRADI-8,
UDI-6)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PFDI-20 Question 3 Only
PFIQ-7
X
X
PGI-I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
PISQ-IR
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BIPOP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SF-12
X
X
X
X
DRS-PFD/SDS-PFD
X
X
X
X
X
X
Menefee et al.
Window (+/− wk)
PERIOP
Author Manuscript
SCREEN
Author Manuscript
MEASURE
Page 20
Menefee et al.
Page 21
Table 3.
Author Manuscript
Surgeon Certification for the Apical Procedures in ASPIRe Trial.
FOR SACRAL COLPOPEXY CERTIFICATION:
1. All surgeons will review the written manual of operation illustrating the essential components of sacral colpopexy technique.
2. All certified surgeons should have performed a minimum of 20 sacral colpopexies by the approach they are performing; with at least 5 of
these procedures in the 12 months prior to beginning participant enrollment.
FOR SSLS/USLS CERTIFICATION:
1. All surgeons will review the written manual of operation illustrating the essential components of SSLS and USLS technique.
2. All certified surgeons should have performed a minimum of 20 SSLS and/or USLS; with at least 5 of these procedures in the 12 months prior
to beginning participant enrollment.
FOR APICAL TVM CERTIFICATION:
1. All surgeons will view a surgical DVD illustrating essential components of the Uphold Lite®
2. All certified surgeons should have performed 20 sacrospinous ligament dissections in their careers with performance of at least 10 anterior
vaginal dissections to the sacrospinous ligament
Author Manuscript
3. Performance of at least 10 Capio suture applications
4. Either performance of, or hands on proctoring of at least 5 Uphold Lite® procedures for uterovaginal prolapse or cuff-vaginal prolapse for the
technique that he/she will be performing.
SSLS, sacrospinous ligament suspension; USLS, uterosacral ligament suspension; TVM, Transvaginal Mesh
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 22
Table 4:
Author Manuscript
Standardization for the 4 approaches used in the ASPIRe Trial
Native Tissue with Sacrospinous Ligament Suspension (SSLS)
1. SSLS is performed through a vaginal incision.
2. The 4 points on each vaginal wall (anterior, posterior and lateral on each side) that comfortably reaches the sacrospinous ligament yet
eliminates sagging are identified. These points will serve as the fixation point for the suspension. The excess vagina in between these points is
removed.
3. Two permanent and two delayed absorbable (4 sutures total), 0 or 2–0 monofilament stitches must be placed in the left OR right ligament.
Bilateral procedures are not permissible.
4. One arm of each suture will be passed into the anterior and posterior fibromuscular wall of the vaginal apex, respectively (4 suture arms in
the anterior edge and 4 suture arms in the posterior edge). The permanent sutures will be placed near full thickness, excluding vaginal
epithelium. The delayed absorbable sutures will be placed full thickness through the vaginal wall with the knot tied inside the vaginal canal.
5. Permanent sutures will be placed so that the knots, when tied, are not exposed in the vaginal canal (“buried”). The use of a pulley stitch is
allowed.
6. Other aspects of the procedure—such as management of enterocele—will be left to the surgeon’s discretion and will be recorded.
Author Manuscript
Native Tissue with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension (USLS):
1. USLS is performed through a vaginal incision.
2. One permanent and one delayed absorbable 0 or 2–0 monofilament suture (2 sutures per side; 4 sutures total) must be placed in each
ligament, extending to the ipsilateral anterior and posterior fibromuscular wall of the vaginal apex. The permanent sutures will be placed near
full thickness, excluding vaginal epithelium. The delayed absorbable sutures will be placed full thickness through the vaginal wall with the knot
tied inside the vaginal canal.
3. No plication of the uterosacral ligaments across the midline or culdoplasty is allowed.
4. Other aspects of the procedure—such as management of enterocele—will be left to the surgeon’s discretion and will be recorded.
5. If clinical circumstances prohibit safe/effective completion of the planned procedure, the preferred back-up procedure is a SSLS as
described above. In the event that both USLS and SSLS cannot be performed safely or effectively, the choice of vaginal suspension procedure
will be left to the surgeon's discretion and recorded.
Apical Transvaginal Mesh: Uphold Lite® Procedure
1. Hydrodissection of the vaginal walls will be performed with at least 30 cc of 0.25% bupivicaine with epinephrine or dilute Pitressin (20
Units/50–100 cc).
Author Manuscript
2. An approximate 4 cm transverse vaginal incision is made in the anterior vaginal wall between the bladder neck and the apex, but at least 3
cm from the cuff so that the suture line will not overlap with the mesh. In the occasional circumstances where posterior vaginal prolapse is the
dominant vaginal prolapse, a posterior vaginal incision with a posterior approach to the sacrospinous ligament will be allowed.
3. Blunt or sharp dissection to approach the sacrospinous ligament extra-peritoneally.
4. After confirmation of the location of the ischial spine, the tapered lead and mesh assembly will be delivered into the sacrospinous ligament
1–2 fingerbreadths medial to the ischial spine.
5. The most cephalic edge of the mesh may be attached to the vaginal apex (post-hysterectomy) with sutures.
6. Mesh modifications are strongly discouraged; any exceptions will be documented on operative case report forms. Mesh orientation will be
as described with body of mesh placed anterior (no flipping of mesh body to face posteriorly).
7. Tensioning to re-suspend the apex without tense mesh arms.
8. Ligation of enterocele is allowed as indicated with 0 or 2–0 delayed absorbable monofilament suture and may be attached to posterior
aspect of mesh.
9. The distal most edge of the mesh (closest to the bladder neck) may be secured with sutures to prevent bunching or rolling of the mesh.
10. Vaginal closure with 2–0 polyglactin.
Sacral Colpopexy:
Author Manuscript
The technique for sacral colpopexy needs to be performed in similar fashion when performed by open, laparoscopic and robotic approach.
Vesicovaginal and rectovaginal dissection will be performed in the usual fashion to allow placement of anterior and posterior vaginal mesh
arms.
• Mesh:
○ Standardize mesh characteristics: knitted, large pore (≥1800 mm), light weight (≤42g/m2), high porosity (≥60%) monofilament
polypropylene mesh (no greater than GyneMesh™) will be allowed.
○ Y-mesh or two separate arms will be allowed. The two arms may be attached using standardized suture per surgeon’s choice.
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 23
○ No xenograft or allograft products
○ No collagen coated mesh
Author Manuscript
○ Mesh type and configuration will be tracked
○ The length of the anterior, posterior and sacral arms implanted will be recorded.
○ No minimum mesh length is required and is at surgeon’s discretion.
• The mesh will be attached with a minimum of 4 attachment sites on each arm (anterior and posterior, 8 total). Additional attachment points
are allowed as needed per surgeon’s discretion. No self-locking sutures will be allowed.
○ Suture: The protocol has standardized the suture type to minimize potential for suture exposure and erosion. Delayed or permanent
monofilament absorbable suture will be used for attachment of mesh to the vagina.
○ A minimum size of 2–0 suture is required (0 or 2–0). Given the reports of increase suture erosion, Gortex and braided permanent suture
will not be allowed for vaginal attachment.
• Presacral dissection will be performed to allow for attachment of the sacral mesh arm inferior to the sacral promontory. A minimum of two
permanent sutures or permanent anchors/tacks should be used to attach the mesh. The location will be tracked on intra-operative data form.
• Peritoneal closure is performed.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 24
Table 5:
Author Manuscript
Additional Study Measures
Anatomic:
• POP-Q points (Aa, Ap, Ba, Bp, C)
• Proportion of participants in each group with C > −2/3 TVL
• Maximum extent of prolapse (defined as leading edge of prolapse-Ba, C, Bp)
Functional:
• Prolapse: Patients Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I)27, Mean overall prolapse symptoms using POPDI-6 scores12
• Urinary: Duration of postop catheterization, Mean UDI-6 scores (sub-scale of PFDI-20)12, De novo voiding dysfunction rates, De novo
incontinence rates
• Sexual/Body Image: Mean PISQ-IR28 and BIPOP scales29, Rates of de novo dyspareunia
• Bowel - bowel function using CRADI-8 scores12
Author Manuscript
• Quality of Life Measures: General SF-12 scores and sub-scales30, Pelvic QOL - mean PFIQ score12, Katz ADL31, Functional Activity
Scale32
Regret/Satisfaction:
• Regret with Decision Regret Scale (DRS-PFD) and Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SDS-PFD)23
Safety:
• Intraoperative safety: group comparisons of mean operative time, estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, intra- and postoperative
complications categorized using a modification of the Dindo Classification33
• Mesh-related complications: mesh exposure in the vagina or mesh erosion into another organ and the classification of the intervention:
○ None or non-surgical medical intervention only
○ Minor or intra-office surgical intervention
○ Surgery
• Rates of pain captured from the modified Surgical Pain Scale34, pain medication use (during 24 hours prior to completing Body Part Pain
Score), and location of pain with Body Part Pain Score.
• Pelvic infection: Perioperative infections, urinary tract infections, vaginal infections with flora uncommon to the vaginal canal
Author Manuscript
• De novo vaginal bleeding, atypical vaginal discharge, fistula formation, neuromuscular problems (including groin, buttock and leg pain).
• Need for subsequent procedures: any surgical or non-surgical treatment for pelvic floor disorders (including urinary incontinence, voiding
dysfunction, defecatory dysfunction, fecal incontinence, recurrent prolapse, and dyspareunia/pelvic pain).
• Rates of vaginal scarring, defined as de novo scar requiring medical or surgical intervention.
• Rates of vaginal shortening (TVL<6cm), de novo dyspareunia, and worsening dyspareunia with AE survey.
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.
Menefee et al.
Page 25
Table 6:
Author Manuscript
Adverse Events Guidelines:
• During the first six weeks following surgery: All AEs and SAEs of grade II or higher will be captured for the first six weeks following surgery.
• During the 6-Month Visit: For the period between six weeks and six months capture all AEs and SAEs that are deaths, require a hospitalization
or an emergency room visit, and all AEs of grade II or higher that are at least possibly related to the pelvis or surgery, in the opinion of the
investigator.
• At all remaining visits, only deaths and AEs and SAEs of grade II or higher that are at least possibly related to the pelvis or surgery, in the
opinion of the investigator, will be collected.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 July 02.