Apical Suspension Repair for Vault Prolapse In a Three-Arm Randomized Trial Design

The study is a multi-center, randomized, surgical trial of women with symptomatic post-hysterectomy apical (cuff) prolapse desiring surgical treatment. This study will compare the three available surgical treatments performed in usual practice. The purpose of this study is to compare two commonly performed mesh apical repair (sacral colpopexy vs. Apical Transvaginal Mesh) and vaginal native tissue apical repairs with mesh reinforced repairs. The primary outcome is measured over time (up to 60 months) using a survival analysis approach.

The investigators hypothesize that treatment failure will not differ between vaginally and abdominally placed mesh for vault vaginal prolapse, and mesh repairs (regardless of route of implantation) will be superior to native tissue apical suspension.

The primary purpose of this three arm randomized clinical trial is to determine if apical transvaginal mesh placement is non-inferior to sacral colpopexy for anatomic correction of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse and to determine if mesh reinforced repairs performed by abdominal or vaginal approach are superior to native tissue vaginal repair. This trial has the following primary aims:

1. To determine if Apical Transvaginal Mesh is non-inferior to Sacral Colpopexy for anatomic correction of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse at time points through 3 years.

1A. In the case where Apical Transvaginal Mesh is shown to be statistically significantly non-inferior to Sacral Colpopexy for anatomic correction of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse at time points through 3 years, to determine if Apical Transvaginal Mesh is superior to Sacral Colpopexy for anatomic correction of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse at time points through 3 years.

1. To determine if Sacral Colpopexy is superior to Native Tissue Repair for anatomic correction of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse at time points through 3 years.
2. To determine if Apical Transvaginal Mesh is superior to Native Tissue Repair for anatomic correction of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse at time points through 3 years.

Additional secondary aims include:

1. Evaluate the development of a valid and reliable Global Composite Outcome that balances adverse events and patient-centered outcomes to anatomic definitions of failure and success.
2. Determine the impact of preoperative frailty and mobility on surgical treatment outcomes and postoperative complications of older women following surgical correction of apical pelvic organ prolapse.
3. Evaluate the patient's perspective about adverse events and their role in patient decision-making outcomes. The aims include comparing patient versus surgeon rankings of complication grade, outcome, expectedness and seriousness, to estimate the association between patient rankings of adverse events (AEs) with decision-making and quality of life outcomes and to determine if their perspective about AEs changes over time.