MRI 2-D Parameters Associated with Native Tissue or Transvaginal Mesh Surgical Apical Prolapse Repair Failure
6 affiliations
- 1Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA
- 2Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA USA
- 3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 619 19th Street South, Birmingham, AL 35243 USA
- 4Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC USA
- 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM USA
- 6Social, Statistical, and Environmental Sciences, RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC USA
Abstract
Introduction and Hypothesis: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can evaluate individual components of postsurgical recurrent prolapse that may not be visible on physical examination and provide insights into mechanisms of prolapse recurrence.
Methods: This planned prospective secondary imaging analysis at nine clinical sites performed in the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures-Randomized (SUPeR) trial of the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01802281) randomized 183 women to native tissue repair (NTR-hysterectomy) or vaginal mesh repair (VM-hysteropexy) for uterovaginal prolapse, and assessed for surgical failure. A subset of participants who enrolled in Defining Mechanisms of Anterior Vaginal Wall Descent (DEMAND) underwent MRI at rest, maximal strain, and post-strain rest (recovery) 30–42 months after surgery or prior to 30 months if undergoing reoperation for recurrence.
Results: Of the 88 participants analyzed (aged 65 ± 7.7 years), 22 (25.0%) had surgical failure by clinical criteria, 8/45 (17.8%) VM-hysteropexy; 14/43 (32.6%) NTR-hysterectomy, p = 0.14. Larger genital hiatus (H-line, 86.5 mm vs 72.3 mm, p = 0.003), low posterior position during strain (M-line, 55.6 mm vs 40.3 mm, p = 0.005), and apical compartments (vaginal apex position below pubococcygeal line (PCL), 42.1 mm vs 13.1 mm, p < 0.001) were associated with failure vs success after VM-hysteropexy. In the NTR-hysterectomy group, failures demonstrated greater vaginal width (46.3 mm vs 41.3 mm, p = 0.04), vaginal circumference (108.5 mm vs 96.1 mm, p = 0.03), and bladder descent vs successes.
Conclusions: Pelvic MRI parameters associated with surgical failure vs success varied between VM-hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy.
Related
- Artificial Intelligence Versus Manual Measurement of Spinopelvic Sagittal Parameters Across Preoperative, Postoperative, and Instrumented Spines: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Accuracy, Failure Rates, and Inferred Surgical Planning Implications.
- A Global Consensus Conference on Surgical Management of Primary Uterovaginal Prolapse and Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction: Combining Evidence with Expert Opinion
- One-Year Outcomes of Green Laser Endoscopic Cyclophotocoagulation and Factors Associated with Surgical Failure: A Retrospective Observational Study.
- Whole-genome sequencing in mitral valve prolapse: an exploratory study on genes associated with mitral valve prolapse and cardiac arrhythmias
- Surgical explantation following early transcatheter aortic valve failure: Technical considerations for complex situations.
BibTeX
@article{lockhart2026parameters,
title = {{MRI 2-D Parameters Associated with Native Tissue or Transvaginal Mesh Surgical Apical Prolapse Repair Failure}},
author = {Mark E. Lockhart and Pamela A. Moalli and Holly E. Richter and Isuzu Meyer and Allison C. Weidner and Yuko M. Komesu and Benjamin Carper and Marie G. Gantz},
journal = {International Urogynecology Journal},
year = {2026},
month = may,
doi = {10.1007/s00192-026-06699-0},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-026-06699-0},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - MRI 2-D Parameters Associated with Native Tissue or Transvaginal Mesh Surgical Apical Prolapse Repair Failure
AU - Mark E. Lockhart
AU - Pamela A. Moalli
AU - Holly E. Richter
AU - Isuzu Meyer
AU - Allison C. Weidner
AU - Yuko M. Komesu
AU - Benjamin Carper
AU - Marie G. Gantz
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/05/30
JO - International Urogynecology Journal
DO - 10.1007/s00192-026-06699-0
UR - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-026-06699-0
AB - Introduction and Hypothesis: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can evaluate individual components of postsurgical recurrent prolapse that may not be visible on physical examination and provide insights into mechanisms of prolapse recurrence. Methods: This planned prospective secondary imaging analysis at nine clinical sites performed in the Study of Uterine Prolapse Procedures-Randomized (SUPeR) trial of the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (NICHD) Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01802281) randomized 183 women to native tissue repair (NTR-hysterectomy) or vaginal mesh repair (VM-hysteropexy) for uterovaginal prolapse, and assessed for surgical failure. A subset of participants who enrolled in Defining Mechanisms of Anterior Vaginal Wall Descent (DEMAND) underwent MRI at rest, maximal strain, and post-strain rest (recovery) 30–42 months after surgery or prior to 30 months if undergoing reoperation for recurrence. Results: Of the 88 participants analyzed (aged 65 ± 7.7 years), 22 (25.0%) had surgical failure by clinical criteria, 8/45 (17.8%) VM-hysteropexy; 14/43 (32.6%) NTR-hysterectomy, p = 0.14. Larger genital hiatus (H-line, 86.5 mm vs 72.3 mm, p = 0.003), low posterior position during strain (M-line, 55.6 mm vs 40.3 mm, p = 0.005), and apical compartments (vaginal apex position below pubococcygeal line (PCL), 42.1 mm vs 13.1 mm, p < 0.001) were associated with failure vs success after VM-hysteropexy. In the NTR-hysterectomy group, failures demonstrated greater vaginal width (46.3 mm vs 41.3 mm, p = 0.04), vaginal circumference (108.5 mm vs 96.1 mm, p = 0.03), and bladder descent vs successes. Conclusions: Pelvic MRI parameters associated with surgical failure vs success varied between VM-hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy.
SN - 0937-3462
SN - 1433-3023
ER -