Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects millions of women around the world, with age-standardized prevalence rates of 2769 per 100,000 women in 2021. Although it greatly affects quality of life (QoL), only 18–50% of women experiencing this issue seek medical attention, largely due to a lack of knowledge, misunderstandings about the condition, and obstacles to accessing healthcare. This narrative review explores the progression of POP management towards a focus on patient-centered care, highlighting the importance of personalized treatment strategies that prioritize patient-reported outcomes (PROs) over solely anatomical factors. The approach to treatment has transitioned from being centered on anatomy to focusing on the patient, emphasizing the relief of symptoms and enhancement in QoL. Existing research indicates that monitoring without intervention is advisable for asymptomatic patients, as long-term studies have revealed that up to 40% of women experience stable or improved prolapse over a period up to 60 months. Pessary treatment has a fitting success rate above 90% and a treatment persistence rate of 60%, providing an effective non-surgical option for management. The approach to selecting surgical treatments has progressed to prioritize sufficient apical support as a key factor for achieving lasting results. For primary POP, native tissue repair (NTR) is now recommended as the first-line surgical option. Mesh-augmented repairs are used only in certain high-risk situations, whereas sacrocolpopexy offers the best anatomical stability for particular cases, such as those involving post-hysterectomy prolapse and recurrences. Contemporary POP management involves personalized, patient-focused decision-making that emphasizes addressing symptom severity and functional objectives rather than solely aiming for anatomical precision. The evidence suggests that NTR should be the primary surgical approach, while other procedures should be reserved for specially chosen patients. Success should primarily be evaluated based on PROs instead of anatomical factors, ensuring that treatments align with each patient’s preferences and expectations while reducing complications.
Padoa et al. (Thu,) studied this question.