Pelvic Organ Prolapse: 5 Practical Clinical Insights
An evidence synthesis on pelvic organ prolapse covering pessary management, native tissue repair, mesh sacrocolpopexy, and the post-FDA-mesh-action reconstructive landscape, anchored to the OPTIMAL and SUPeR randomized trials and the 2019 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 214.
One-Minute Takeaway on Pelvic Organ Prolapse
One-Minute Takeaway
- Pelvic organ prolapse management spans pessary care, pelvic floor physical therapy, native tissue surgical repair, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy with mesh.
- The OPTIMAL randomized trial demonstrated comparable 2-year and 5-year outcomes between sacrospinous ligament fixation and uterosacral ligament suspension as native tissue apical repairs.
- The SUPeR trial showed lower 3-year treatment failure with vaginal mesh hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy plus uterosacral suspension, with mesh exposure as the principal trade-off.
- The FDA ordered transvaginal mesh kits for prolapse withdrawn from the US market in 2019; abdominal sacrocolpopexy mesh remains available.
- Treatment selection is anchored to severity, fertility intent, sexual activity, surgical risk, and patient preference per the 2019 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 214.
Why Pelvic Organ Prolapse Matters
Pelvic organ prolapse is common, affecting an estimated 30 to 50% of parous women based on examination findings, with approximately 13% experiencing clinically meaningful symptoms requiring evaluation or treatment. The condition is associated with bothersome bulge sensation, urinary and bowel dysfunction, sexual dysfunction, and reduced quality of life. Lifetime risk of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse or stress urinary incontinence in the United States is estimated at 11 to 20%.
Management spans a spectrum from observation and pelvic floor physical therapy through pessary fitting to reconstructive surgery. The choice depends on symptom severity, prolapse stage, fertility intent, sexual activity, surgical risk, and patient preference. The 2019 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 214 provides the current US framework for evaluation and stepped management.
Surgical management has undergone substantial evolution since 2010. The OPTIMAL randomized trial compared two principal native tissue apical suspension techniques. The SUPeR trial compared vaginal mesh hysteropexy against vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue suspension. The PROSPECT trial compared transvaginal mesh kits against native tissue vaginal repair.
The FDA’s April 2019 order to remove transvaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse repair from the US market closed one major chapter and refocused practice on native tissue repair, abdominal sacrocolpopexy with mesh, and pessary management. Apical suspension — sacrospinous, uterosacral, or sacrocolpopexy — remains the foundation of durable surgical management.
Evidence on pessary management has matured in parallel. The Bugge 2020 Cochrane review and observational cohorts show that pessary treatment achieves symptom relief and high patient satisfaction in the majority of fitted patients. Pessary management is appropriate first-line for many patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and is not limited to those who decline surgery.
What Evidence Was Reviewed
This synthesis draws on the OPTIMAL randomized trial of sacrospinous versus uterosacral ligament suspension (Barber 2014) and its 5-year extended follow-up (Jelovsek 2018), the SUPeR randomized trial of vaginal mesh hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue suspension (Nager 2019), the PROSPECT trial of transvaginal mesh versus native tissue vaginal repair (Glazener 2017), and the Bugge 2020 Cochrane review of pessaries for managing pelvic organ prolapse.
Long-term sacrocolpopexy outcomes are anchored to the CARE randomized trial (Brubaker 2006) and its extended observational follow-up at 7 years (Nygaard 2013). Pelvic floor muscle training evidence comes from the POPPY randomized trial (Hagen 2014). Pessary type comparisons rest on the PESSRI randomized crossover (Cundiff 2007). The 2019 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 214 provides the integrative US clinical framework.
| Study / Source | Design | n | Comparison | Primary Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPTIMAL (Barber 2014, JAMA) | RCT | 374 | Sacrospinous vs uterosacral suspension | Composite anatomic + symptomatic success at 2 yr |
| OPTIMAL 5-yr (Jelovsek 2018) | RCT extended follow-up | 285 | Sacrospinous vs uterosacral | Long-term failure |
| SUPeR (Nager 2019, JAMA) | RCT | 183 | Vaginal mesh hysteropexy vs hysterectomy + USLS | Treatment failure at 3 yr |
| PROSPECT (Glazener 2017, Lancet) | RCT | 1,352 | Vaginal mesh / graft vs native tissue | Symptom and QoL outcomes at 2 yr |
| CARE (Brubaker 2006, NEJM) | RCT | 322 | Sacrocolpopexy ± Burch colposuspension | Stress incontinence symptoms at 3 mo |
| Extended CARE (Nygaard 2013, JAMA) | Long-term cohort follow-up | 215 | Sacrocolpopexy long-term outcomes | 7-yr anatomic and symptomatic failure |
| Bugge 2020 (Cochrane pessary) | SR/MA | NR (limited RCTs) | Pessary types and pessary vs surgery | Symptom and QoL outcomes |
| POPPY (Hagen 2014, Lancet) | RCT | 447 | Pelvic floor muscle training vs control | Prolapse symptom score at 12 mo |
| PESSRI (Cundiff 2007) | Randomized crossover | 134 | Ring vs Gellhorn pessary | Symptom relief |
| Sung 2016 (Am J Obstet Gynecol) | Prospective cohort | 160 | Surgery vs pessary goal attainment | Patient-reported goal achievement at 12 mo |
| Maher 2016 (Cochrane apical surgery) | SR/MA | NR (multiple RCTs) | Apical surgery techniques | Anatomic and symptomatic outcomes |
| ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 214 (2019) | Clinical practice guideline | Synthesis | Evaluation and management framework | Recommendations |
Key Findings — Synthesised by Theme
Theme 1 — Pessaries Provide Effective Non-Surgical Management
Pessary management is effective for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse, with successful initial fitting in approximately 60 to 75% of patients across observational cohorts and continuation rates around 50 to 65% at 1 year. The Bugge 2020 Cochrane review concluded that pessary treatment improves prolapse symptoms and quality of life, although high-quality randomized data comparing pessary types are limited.
Patient selection factors include vaginal anatomy (introital width, perineal body integrity), prolapse stage, sexual activity, and ability to manage care. The Sung 2016 cohort comparing surgery and pessary for pelvic organ prolapse goal attainment found similar patient-reported goal achievement at 12 months between groups, although discontinuation of pessary was higher than reoperation after surgery.
The PESSRI randomized crossover (Cundiff 2007) compared ring and Gellhorn pessaries and found similar symptom relief between types, with patient comfort and ease of self-management driving long-term continuation. ACOG endorses pessary management as a first-line option for symptomatic patients seeking non-surgical care.
Theme 2 — OPTIMAL Establishes Equivalence of Native Tissue Apical Suspensions
The OPTIMAL randomized trial (Barber 2014) compared two native tissue apical suspension techniques — sacrospinous ligament fixation and uterosacral ligament suspension — in 374 women with stage 2 to 4 pelvic organ prolapse. At 2 years, composite anatomic and symptomatic success was 60.5% (sacrospinous) versus 59.2% (uterosacral), an absolute difference that did not reach statistical significance.
Five-year extended follow-up (Jelovsek 2018) confirmed comparable long-term outcomes between the two techniques, with surgical retreatment for prolapse in approximately 10% of each group. Surgical retreatment for stress incontinence and additional reoperations were similarly distributed. The OPTIMAL 5-year data establish that either suspension is an acceptable native tissue apical repair option.
Choice between sacrospinous and uterosacral approaches may rest on surgeon experience, vaginal length and cuff descent, and patient-specific factors. The OPTIMAL trial also tested perioperative behavioral therapy (pelvic floor muscle training plus behavioral intervention) and did not show benefit on prolapse outcomes, although ancillary benefit on incontinence symptoms is consistent with broader pelvic floor muscle training evidence.
Theme 3 — Mesh Sacrocolpopexy Retains a Role; Transvaginal Mesh Was Withdrawn
Mesh sacrocolpopexy (typically abdominal or laparoscopic) retains a role in apical pelvic organ prolapse repair. The CARE trial and its extended cohort follow-up (Nygaard 2013) followed 215 women after abdominal sacrocolpopexy with mesh; cumulative anatomic failure at 7 years was approximately 27% by composite definition, with reoperation for prolapse in roughly 10%. Mesh-related complications including mesh exposure occurred in approximately 10.5% over follow-up.
Transvaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse, by contrast, were ordered withdrawn from the US market in April 2019 after the FDA concluded that manufacturers had not demonstrated reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for this indication. The PROSPECT randomized trial (Glazener 2017) of transvaginal mesh versus native tissue repair across 1,352 women found no improvement in prolapse symptom outcomes with mesh and approximately 12% mesh-related complications.
The distinction between abdominal sacrocolpopexy mesh (still available) and transvaginal mesh kits (withdrawn) is important in patient counseling. Sacrocolpopexy mesh exposure rates and reoperation profiles differ meaningfully from those reported for transvaginal kits.
Theme 4 — SUPeR Frames a Hysteropexy Trade-Off
The SUPeR trial (Nager 2019) compared vaginal mesh hysteropexy with vaginal hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension in 183 women with uterovaginal prolapse. At 3 years, treatment failure was 26.0% in the hysteropexy-with-mesh group versus 38.0% in the hysterectomy-with-suspension group — a hazard ratio of 0.62 (95% CI 0.38–1.02).
Mesh exposure occurred in approximately 8% of hysteropexy-with-mesh patients. The SUPeR result frames a counseling trade-off: hysteropexy with mesh may offer a numerical 3-year durability advantage but with mesh-related complication risk. This distinguishes the SUPeR mesh question from the broader transvaginal kit question that the FDA addressed in 2019.
Patient counseling should integrate the trade-off, the partial-uterine-preservation distinction (potentially relevant to fertility, sexual function, and personal preference), and the SUPeR mesh exposure data. Hysteropexy without mesh remains an active area of evidence accumulation.
Theme 5 — Treatment Selection Is Anchored to Severity, Goals, and Surgical Risk
Treatment selection in pelvic organ prolapse is anchored to severity, fertility intent, sexual activity, surgical risk, and patient preference. Mild symptomatic disease is supported by pessary management and pelvic floor physical therapy as first-line. The POPPY trial (Hagen 2014) of individualised pelvic floor muscle training showed reduction in prolapse symptoms versus control at 12 months.
For moderate-to-severe symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse, surgical options include native tissue apical suspension (uterosacral, sacrospinous), abdominal or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with mesh, hysteropexy alternatives, and obliterative procedures (colpocleisis) in selected patients who do not desire vaginal sexual function. Counseling should integrate the OPTIMAL and SUPeR data and the FDA 2019 transvaginal mesh action.
Clinical pearl — The dominant counseling question in modern pelvic organ prolapse surgery is no longer “native tissue or mesh?” but “which approach matches this patient’s anatomy, sexual activity, frailty, and tolerance of mesh-related complication risk?” The answer integrates OPTIMAL, SUPeR, sacrocolpopexy long-term data, and the post-FDA-action regulatory landscape.
Abdominal (open or minimally invasive) sacrocolpopexy uses synthetic mesh attached between the vaginal apex and the anterior longitudinal ligament of the sacrum. The 2019 FDA action did not affect this approach. Transvaginal mesh kits, by contrast, are placed through vaginal incisions to reinforce anterior or posterior compartment defects; these were ordered withdrawn from the US market in April 2019. Mesh exposure rates and reoperation profiles differ meaningfully between the two approaches and should be counseled distinctly.
Colpocleisis is an obliterative procedure that closes the vaginal canal, eliminating prolapse symptoms with minimal operative time and very high anatomic success rates (greater than 90%). It is reserved for patients with advanced pelvic organ prolapse who do not desire vaginal sexual function and who may not tolerate longer reconstructive procedures. Patient counseling on the irreversibility of vaginal closure is essential. Postoperative regret rates are low when counseling is thorough and patient selection is appropriate.
The POPPY randomized trial (Hagen 2014) of 447 women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse compared individualised pelvic floor muscle training delivered over 16 weeks against a lifestyle advice control. The intervention group reported reduced prolapse symptom scores at 12 months. Effect sizes are modest and the intervention is best positioned as adjunctive — for mild symptoms, perioperative optimisation, or patients seeking conservative management before pessary or surgery.
The CARE trial (Brubaker 2006) randomized women undergoing abdominal sacrocolpopexy to receive concomitant Burch colposuspension or no incontinence procedure. Burch reduced postoperative stress incontinence symptoms at 3 months. Subsequent OPUS trial extended this question to vaginal prolapse repair with midurethral sling. Current ACOG guidance supports counseling on concomitant anti-incontinence procedures based on preoperative continence status, occult incontinence testing, and patient preference.
The Maher 2016 Cochrane review of apical surgery for pelvic organ prolapse concluded that abdominal sacrocolpopexy is associated with lower rates of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, and reoperation for prolapse compared with vaginal apical repairs in pooled trials, although operative time, hospital stay, and cost may be higher. Native tissue vaginal repair retains an important role given comparable patient-reported outcomes, lower mesh-related complication risk, and shorter recovery for selected patients.
Quality & Consistency of the Evidence
Evidence quality across the pelvic organ prolapse literature is high for the central comparative questions of native tissue suspensions (OPTIMAL), mesh hysteropexy versus hysterectomy with native tissue suspension (SUPeR), and transvaginal mesh kits versus native tissue (PROSPECT). The Maher 2016 Cochrane review provides systematic synthesis of apical surgery options.
What the Evidence Does Not Show
Several specific gaps remain in the pelvic organ prolapse evidence base. Naming these gaps explicitly is more useful than the generic “more research is needed” framing.
Specific evidence gaps
- Comparative outcomes beyond 5 to 7 years are limited — the OPTIMAL 5-year and extended CARE 7-year data are the longest comparative follow-up sets and direct head-to-head comparisons across surgical approaches at 10 years remain scarce.
- Hysteropexy without mesh — sacrospinous, uterosacral, or laparoscopic — lacks a multicenter RCT directly comparable in scope to SUPeR; comparative durability versus hysterectomy plus suspension is not yet established.
- Optimal pessary selection algorithm (which type, in which anatomical configuration, with what care schedule) remains driven by clinical experience rather than randomized data; the PESSRI crossover is the principal comparative trial.
- Outcomes after mesh complication management (exposure, contraction, pain) — including reoperation success rates, persistent pain, and patient-reported function — are reported in case series rather than systematic comparative cohorts.
- Treatment effectiveness in elderly and frail populations is poorly characterized; pivotal trials largely enrolled women below age 75, limiting generalizability of OPTIMAL and SUPeR outcomes to older or medically complex patients.
- The role of robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy versus open and conventional laparoscopic approaches has been studied for perioperative outcomes but long-term comparative durability is less well established.
In addition, evidence-based guidance on retreatment after a failed primary pelvic organ prolapse repair — whether to repeat a native tissue approach, convert to sacrocolpopexy, or pursue obliterative repair — rests largely on observational case series rather than randomized comparison.
Practical Implications for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Based on the current evidence, the following considerations may inform pelvic organ prolapse management. These are framed as evidence-based considerations rather than directive recommendations; clinical judgement, anatomical findings, comorbidity, and patient preference should guide individual decisions.
Implementation should be tailored to surgeon experience, anatomy (apical descent, vaginal length, compartment dominance), patient sexual activity and frailty, and the patient’s preferences regarding mesh, uterine preservation, and recovery time. Pelvic organ prolapse management is best framed as a longitudinal partnership in which initial management (pessary, surgery, or PT) may evolve over years.
Evidence Grade & Bottom Line
Overall Evidence Grade — Strong (for OPTIMAL native tissue equivalence, PROSPECT transvaginal mesh, and pessary symptom improvement); Moderate (for SUPeR hysteropexy and sacrocolpopexy long-term durability); Limited (for outcomes beyond 7 years, hysteropexy without mesh, and management in elderly/frail populations). The body of evidence supporting current pelvic organ prolapse management approaches is unlikely to shift fundamentally with further research, although hysteropexy alternatives and very-long-term comparative data remain active areas.
Bottom Line
- Pessary management remains effective for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and is appropriate first-line for many patients regardless of surgical candidacy.
- OPTIMAL data show sacrospinous and uterosacral ligament suspensions achieve comparable composite success at 2 and 5 years; choice can be individualized to surgeon and patient.
- SUPeR data show vaginal mesh hysteropexy has lower 3-year treatment failure than vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension, with mesh exposure as the principal trade-off.
- Transvaginal mesh kits for pelvic organ prolapse were withdrawn from the US market in 2019; abdominal sacrocolpopexy mesh remains available and durable.
- Treatment selection should integrate severity, fertility intent, sexual activity, surgical risk, and patient preference per the 2019 ACOG framework.
Article Information & References
For Educational Purposes Only
This is an original evidence synthesis informed by the studies listed below. It does not replace clinical judgement. Surgical indications and device selections should be verified against current FDA guidance, ACOG/AUGS practice documents, and individual patient circumstances.
References
- Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1023–1034. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2014.1719
- 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):1554–1565. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.2827
- Nager CW, Visco AG, Richter HE, 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):1054–1065. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.12812
- Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery (PROSPECT): two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials. Lancet. 2017;389(10067):381–392. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31596-3
- Brubaker L, Cundiff GW, Fine P, et al. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy with Burch colposuspension to reduce urinary stress incontinence (CARE). N Engl J Med. 2006;354(15):1557–1566. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa054208
- Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–2024. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919
- Bugge C, Adams EJ, Gopinath D, et al. Pessaries (mechanical devices) for managing pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;(11):CD004010. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004010.pub4
- Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;(10):CD012376. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012376
- Hagen S, Stark D, Glazener C, et al. Individualised pelvic floor muscle training in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POPPY): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014;383(9919):796–806. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61977-7
- Cundiff GW, Amundsen CL, Bent AE, et al. The PESSRI study: symptom relief outcomes of a randomized crossover trial of the ring and Gellhorn pessaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(4):405.e1–405.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.02.018
- Sung VW, Wohlrab KJ, Madsen A, Raker C. Patient-reported goal attainment and comprehensive functioning outcomes after surgery compared with pessary for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):659.e1–659.e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.06.013
- Lamers BH, Broekman BM, Milani AL. Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and health-related quality of life: a review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(6):637–644. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1390-7
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 214: Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(5):e126–e142. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003519