Share this article on:

American Urogynecologic Society Prolapse Consensus Conference Summary Report

Siddiqui, Nazema Y., MD, MHSc*†; Gregory, W. Thomas, MD*‡; Handa, Victoria L., MD; DeLancey, John O.L., MD*∥; Richter, Holly E., MD; Moalli, Pamela, MD, PhD*,**; Barber, Matthew D., MD, MHS*†; Pulliam, Samantha, MD*††; Visco, Anthony G., MD*†; Alperin, Marianna, MD*‡‡; Medina, Carlos, MD*§§; Fraser, Matthew O., PhD*∥∥; Bradley, Catherine S., MD, MSCE*¶¶

Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery: January 5, 2018 - Volume Publish Ahead of Print - Issue - p
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000533

Objectives The 2016 American Urogynecologic Society Prolapse Consensus Conference brought together thought leaders in the field of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The goal was to identify critical areas of need for future research. This article summarizes the findings.

Methods Prior to the conference, 5 major focus areas were identified. Focus areas were explored over the 2-day conference. Clinicians, clinical and basic science researchers, and representatives from government agencies, industry, patient advocacy groups, and the public convened to identify the major gaps in knowledge in each of these focus areas.

Results The 5 major topics were as follows: (1) mechanistic research on pelvic supportive structures and how these are altered with pregnancy, delivery, and aging; (2) novel prostheses or implants that address pathophysiology and provide mechanical support; (3) large-scale community-based research; (4) clinical trials to optimize outcomes after POP surgery; and (5) evidence-based quality measures for POP outcomes. Key recommendations were made for each topic.

Conclusions Critical gaps in our knowledge were identified. These limit scientific discovery across all 5 topic areas. Further scientific progress would be advanced by (1) developing a standardized group of POP outcomes and quality measures for large trials and community-based research, (2) creating specimen biorepositories that are integrated with robust clinical data, and (3) developing collaborative teams with expertise from a variety of disciplines, convened to tackle our most challenging and complex scientific questions.

From the *American Urogynecologic Society, Silver Spring, MD; †Duke University; ‡Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR; §Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD; ∥University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; ¶University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL; **Magee-Women’s Hospital, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; ††University of North Carolina; ‡‡University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA; §§University of Miami, Miami, FL; ∥∥Duke University and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, Durham, NC; and ¶¶University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.

Reprints: Nazema Y. Siddiqui, MD, MHSc, Duke University Medical Center. E-mail:

This document was developed by the American Urogynecologic Society Scientific Committee with the assistance of Drs Nazema Y. Siddiqui, W. Thomas Gregory, Victoria L. Handa, John O. L. DeLancey, Holly E. Richter, Pamela Moalli, Matthew Barber, Samantha Pulliam, Anthony G. Visco, Marianna Alperin, Carlos Medina, Matthew O. Fraser, and Catherine S. Bradley.

The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.