Pelvic organ prolapse may occur in up to 50% of parous women. A variety of urinary, bowel and sexual symptoms may be associated
with the prolapse.To determine the effects of the many different surgeries used in the management of pelvic organ prolapse.We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central
Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In Process and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings,
healthcare-related bibliographic databases, handsearched conference proceedings (searched 20 August 2012), and reference lists
of relevant articles. We also contacted researchers in the field.Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials that included surgical operations for pelvic organ prolapse.Trials were assessed and data extracted independently by two review authors. Six investigators were contacted for additional
information with five responding.Fifty-six randomised controlled trials were identified evaluating 5954 women. For upper vaginal prolapse (uterine or vault)
abdominal sacral colpopexy was associated with a lower rate of recurrent vault prolapse on examination and painful intercourse
than with vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to
return to activities of daily living and increased cost of the abdominal approach. In single studies the sacral colpopexy
had a higher success rate on examination and lower reoperation rate than high vaginal uterosacral suspension and transvaginal
polypropylene mesh.Twenty-one trials compared a variety of surgical procedures for anterior compartment prolapse (cystocele).
Ten compared native tissue repair with graft (absorbable and permanent mesh, biological grafts) repair for anterior compartment
prolapse. Native tissue anterior repair was associated with more recurrent anterior compartment prolapse than when supplemented
with a polyglactin (absorbable) mesh inlay (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.90) or porcine dermis mesh inlay (RR 2.08, 95% CI 1.08
to 4.01), however there was no difference in post-operative awareness of prolapse after absorbable mesh (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.33
to 2.81) or a biological graft (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.30). Data on morbidity and other clinical outcomes were lacking.
Standard anterior repair was associated with more anterior compartment prolapse on examination than for any polypropylene
(permanent) mesh repair (RR 3.15, 95% CI 2.50 to 3.96). Awareness of prolapse was also higher after the anterior repair as
compared to polypropylene mesh repair (28% versus 18%, RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.07). However, the reoperation rate for prolapse
was similar at 14/459 (3%) after the native tissue repair compared to 6/470 (1.3%) (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.93 to 5.10) after the
anterior polypropylene mesh repair and no differences in quality of life data or de novo dyspareunia were identified. Blood
loss (MD 64 ml, 95% CI 48 to 81), operating time (MD 19 min, 95% CI 16 to 21), recurrences in apical or posterior compartment
(RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.4) and de novo stress urinary incontinence (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 3.1) were significantly higher
with transobturator meshes than for native tissue anterior repair. Mesh erosions were reported in 11.4% (64/563), with surgical
interventions being performed in 6.8% (32/470).Data from three trials compared native tissue repairs with a variety of total,
anterior, or posterior polypropylene kit meshes for vaginal prolapse in multiple compartments. While no difference in awareness
of prolapse was able to be identified between the groups (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.7) the recurrence rate on examination was
higher in the native tissue repair group compared to the transvaginal polypropylene mesh group (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3 to 3.1).
The mesh erosion rate was 35/194 (18%), and 18/194 (9%) underwent surgical correction for mesh erosion. The reoperation rate
after transvaginal polypropylene mesh repair of 22/194 (11%) was higher than after the native tissue repair (7/189, 3.7%)
(RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3 to 7.3).Data from three trials compared posterior vaginal repair and transanal repair for the treatment
of posterior compartment prolapse (rectocele). The posterior vaginal repair had fewer recurrent prolapse symptoms (RR 0.4,
95% CI 0.2 to 1.0) and lower recurrence on examination (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.6) and on defecography (MD -1.2 cm, 95% CI
-2.0 to -0.3).Sixteen trials included significant data on bladder outcomes following a variety of prolapse surgeries. Women
undergoing prolapse surgery may have benefited from having continence surgery performed concomitantly, especially if they
had stress urinary incontinence (RR 7.4, 95% CI 4.0 to 14) or if they were continent and had occult stress urinary incontinence
demonstrated pre-operatively (RR 3.5, 95% CI 1.9 to 6.6). Following prolapse surgery, 12% of women developed de novo symptoms
of bladder overactivity and 9% de novo voiding dysfunction.Sacral colpopexy has superior outcomes to a variety of vaginal procedures including sacrospinous colpopexy, uterosacral colpopexy
and transvaginal mesh. These benefits must be balanced against a longer operating time, longer time to return to activities
of daily living, and increased cost of the abdominal approach.The use of mesh or graft inlays at the time of anterior vaginal
wall repair reduces the risk of recurrent anterior wall prolapse on examination. Anterior vaginal polypropylene mesh also
reduces awareness of prolapse, however these benefits must be weighted against increased operating time, blood loss, rate
of apical or posterior compartment prolapse, de novo stress urinary incontinence, and reoperation rate for mesh exposures
associated with the use of polypropylene mesh.Posterior vaginal wall repair may be better than transanal repair in the management
of rectocele in terms of recurrence of prolapse. The evidence is not supportive of any grafts at the time of posterior vaginal
repair. Adequately powered randomised, controlled clinical trials with blinding of assessors are urgently needed on a wide
variety of issues, and they particularly need to include women's perceptions of prolapse symptoms. Following the withdrawal
of some commercial transvaginal mesh kits from the market, the generalisability of the findings, especially relating to anterior
compartment transvaginal mesh, should be interpreted with caution.