1 Number of women with prolapse symptoms (subjective failure) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

2

169

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.25, 1.09]

1.2 abdominal sacrohysteropexy with Gore‐Tex vs vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal repair, uterosacral ligament plicati

1

82

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.2 [1.29, 7.92]

2 Number of women with any prolapse (objective failure) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy (failed)

1

88

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.39, 1.53]

2.2 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy (not improved)

1

118

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.29 [0.09, 0.97]

2.3 posterior intravaginal slingplasty vs sacrospinous colpopexy

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.8 [0.26, 2.45]

3 Number of women with recurrent vault prolapse (objective) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

2

169

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.07, 0.77]

4 Number of women unsatisfied with surgery Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.32, 2.06]

5 Number of women with post‐operative stress urinary incontinence Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

2

155

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.32, 0.95]

6 Number of women with urgency, detrusor overactivity or overactive bladder Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Number of women with de novo (new) urgency, detrusor overactivity or overactive bladder Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Number of women with persistent voiding dysfunction Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

8.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9 Number of women with new voiding dysfunction Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Number of women with constipation Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Number of women with faecal incontinence Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11.2 posterior intravaginal slingplasty vs sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12 Number of women with obstructed defecation Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Postoperative dyspareunia Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

3

106

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.18, 0.86]

13.2 posterior intravaginal slingplasty vs sacrospinous colpopexy

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.01, 7.62]

14 Women with de novo (new) postoperative dyspareunia Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15 Blood loss (ml) Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

15.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

2

213

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐156.52 [‐212.71, ‐100.32]

15.2 abdominal sacrohysteropexy with Gore‐Tex vs vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal repair, uterosacral ligament plicati

1

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐4.0 [‐22.91, 14.91]

15.3 posterior intravaginal slingplasty vs sacrospinous colpopexy

1

32

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐50.00 [‐77.48, ‐26.52]

16 Postoperative decrease in Hb (gm/dl) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

16.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 Operating time (minutes) Show forest plot

5

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

17.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

3

293

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

21.04 [12.15, 29.94]

17.2 abdominal sacrohysteropexy with Gore‐Tex vs vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal repair, uterosacral ligament plicati

1

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐10.0 [‐11.81, ‐8.19]

17.3 posterior intravaginal slingplasty vs sacrospinous colpopexy

1

32

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐14.0 [‐25.28, ‐2.72]

18 Length of stay in hospital (days) Show forest plot

4

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

3

293

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.14 [‐0.25, 0.53]

18.2 abdominal sacrohysteropexy with Gore‐Tex vs vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal repair, uterosacral ligament plicati

1

82

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.01, 0.21]

19 Time to return to normal activity (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

19.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 Cost (US dollars) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

2

169

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1333.95 [1027.24, 1640.65]

21 Women having further prolapse surgery Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

21.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

2

169

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.19, 1.11]

21.2 abdominal sacrohysteropexy with Gore‐Tex vs vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal repair, uterosacral ligament plicati

1

82

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.0 [1.19, 67.85]

22 Women having further continence surgery Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

22.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

3

287

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.21, 1.73]

23 Women having further prolapse or continence surgery Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

23.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

2

169

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.23, 0.97]

24 Time to recurrence of prolapse (months) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

24.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

25 Adverse events Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

25.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

3

287

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.30 [0.63, 2.69]

25.2 abdominal sacrohysteropexy with Gore‐Tex vs vaginal hysterectomy, vaginal repair, uterosacral ligament plicati

1

82

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.2 [0.40, 3.62]

25.3 posterior intravaginal slingplasty vs sacrospinous colpopexy

1

47

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.28 [0.32, 5.10]

26 Number of women with recurrent rectocele (objective) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

26.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.49 [0.71, 8.79]

27 Number of women with recurrent cystocele (objective) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

27.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

1

89

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.47 [0.12, 1.75]

1 Number of women with prolapse symptoms (subjective failure) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.4 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Number of women with prolapse (objective failure) Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

68

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.06 [0.01, 0.39]

2.4 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

2

138

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.66 [0.34, 1.27]

2.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.88 [0.37, 2.05]

3 Number of women with anterior prolapse / cystocele (objective failure) Show forest plot

7

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 traditonal anterior colporrhaphy vs abdominal paravaginal repair

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.2 traditional anterior colporraphy vs ultralateral anterior colporraphy

1

57

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.84, 1.98]

3.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

2

202

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.48 [1.07, 2.04]

3.4 ultralateral anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.94 [0.57, 1.54]

3.5 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

68

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.01, 0.64]

3.6 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

2

138

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.55 [0.23, 1.29]

3.7 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.14, 6.57]

3.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.17 [0.46, 2.98]

4 Number of women with posterior prolapse / rectocele (objective failure) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 traditional anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Number of women with pre‐operative stress incontinence not cured Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

6.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.4 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

7 Number of women with de novo (new) stress urinary incontinence Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

7.3 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.25, 3.64]

7.5 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

2

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.62 [0.63, 10.91]

7.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.0 [1.23, 65.85]

8 Number of women with urgency, detrusor overactivity or overactive bladder Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

68

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.06 [0.07, 16.27]

8.4 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

2

138

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.20, 4.49]

8.5 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.06, 14.96]

8.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.04, 2.99]

9 Number of women with dyspareunia Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

9.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

9.4 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

10 Operating time (minutes) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Blood loss (ml) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

11.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

12 Haemoglobin change Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Time to return to spontaneous voiding (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

13.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14 Number of women with postoperative complications Show forest plot

6

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14.2 traditional anterior colporraphy vs ultralateral anterior colporraphy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.4 ultralateral anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.5 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.6 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.7 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

14.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15 Length of stay in hospital (days) Show forest plot

3

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

15.3 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15.4 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 Number of women having further prolapse surgery Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

18.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

68

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18.4 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

2

138

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.41 [0.06, 2.71]

18.5 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Number of women having further surgery for incontinence Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

19.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19.4 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19.5 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 Persistent voiding dysfunction Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

20.3 traditional anterior colporraphy vs abdominal Burch colposuspension

1

68

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20.4 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

2

138

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.49, 2.26]

20.5 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.00, 1.54]

20.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.04, 2.99]

21 Number of women with worse bowel function Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

21.1 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

23 Death Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

23.1 traditional anterior colporraphy vs ultralateral anterior colporraphy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

23.2 traditional anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

23.3 ultralateral anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1 Number of women with prolapse symptoms (subjective failure) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

2

87

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.36 [0.13, 1.00]

2 Number of women with prolapse (objective failure) Show forest plot

3

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

2.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair (rectocele)

2

87

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.32 [0.07, 1.34]

2.2 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair (enterocele)

2

87

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.23 [0.07, 0.83]

2.3 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair (rectocele or enterocele))

2

87

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.24 [0.09, 0.64]

2.4 posterior vaginal colporraphy vs posterior colporraphy with mesh reinforcement for rectocele

1

132

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.13 [0.40, 3.19]

4 Number of women with faecal incontinence after operation Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Number of women with anal incontinence to flatus after operation Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6 Number of women with obstructed defecation / constipation after surgery Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

2

65

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.73 [0.37, 1.42]

7 Number of women with sexual function not improved after operation Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

7.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

8 Number of women with dyspareunia Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

8.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

2

80

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.13 [0.87, 11.23]

9 Blood loss (ml) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

9.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

2

87

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

79.38 [39.69, 119.08]

10 Difference in haemoglobin Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

10.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Operating time (minutes) Show forest plot

2

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

2

87

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐3.64 [‐7.43, 0.15]

12 Postoperative narcotic (morphine) use Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

12.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

13 Number of women with postoperative complications Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

13.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

2

87

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

3.56 [0.80, 15.74]

14 Persistent postoperative pain Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

14.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

15 Length of stay in hospital (days) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

15.1 posterior vaginal colporrhaphy vs transanal repair

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

1 Number of women with de novo (new) stress urinary incontinence (subjective diagnosis) Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.96 [0.25, 3.64]

1.2 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

2

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.62 [0.63, 10.91]

1.4 abdominal colpopexy vs vaginal colpopexy

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.27 [0.06, 1.15]

1.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

9.0 [1.23, 65.85]

2 Number of women with de novo (new) stress urinary incontinence (objective diagnosis) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.2 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Number of women with urgency, detrusor overactivity or overactive bladder Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3.6 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4 Number of women with de novo (new) urgency, detrusor overactivity or overactive bladder Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 abdominal colpopexy vs vaginal colpopexy

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.2 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.3 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

4.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

5 Long term new voiding dysfunction Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

5.1 abdominal colpopexy vs vaginal colpopexy

1

75

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.03 [0.07, 15.82]

5.4 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

2

138

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.49, 2.26]

5.5 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.09 [0.00, 1.54]

5.8 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.33 [0.04, 2.99]

6 Number of women having further surgery for incontinence Show forest plot

5

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

6.1 abdominal sacral colpopexy vs vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy

2

207

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.05 [0.28, 3.95]

6.2 cystopexy vs cystopexy + pubourethral ligament plication

1

102

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.3 prolapse repair + urethrovesical plication vs prolapse repair + needle colposuspension

1

73

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

6.4 prolapse repair + urethrovesical endopelvic fascia repair vs prolapse repair + TVT

1

50

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

7.0 [0.38, 128.87]

1 Number of women with anterior prolapse / cystocele (objective failure) Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 traditional or ultralateral anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

2

226

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.39 [1.02, 1.90]

2 Number of women with posterior prolapse / rectocele (objective failure) Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 traditional anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Number of women with postoperative complications Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.3 traditional or ultralateral anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

2

252

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.95 [0.09, 10.08]

4 Death Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

4.1 traditional or ultralateral anterior colporraphy vs anterior colporraphy + mesh reinforcement

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]