Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines

The Role of Uterine Preservation at the Time of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to synthesize the current literature and provide surgeons with data to inform counseling of eligible patients for uterine-preserving prolapse surgery (UPPS).

METHODS

We compared UPPS to similar techniques incorporating hysterectomy, including native-tissue repairs by vaginal, laparoscopic, or open approach; mesh-reinforced repairs by vaginal, laparoscopic, or open approach; obliterative repairs; and the Manchester procedure. Reviewed outcomes include surgical and patient-reported outcomes, complications, uterine pathology, and sexual function. We conducted a structured literature search of English language articles published 1990-2023, combining MeSH terms for pelvic organ prolapse and UPPS. Data were categorized by procedure and approach, and evaluated to provide recommendations and strength of evidence based on group consensus.

RESULTS

Patient counseling on prolapse surgery should follow a benefit/risk assessment related to techniques that preserve the uterus. The discussion should include the benefits of hysterectomy for cancer detection and prevention and acknowledgment that patients should continue cervical cancer screening and evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding following UPPS. The rate of hysterectomy after UPPS is low and most commonly for recurrent prolapse. If cervical elongation is present, trachelectomy should be considered at the time of UPPS. There is no difference in sexual function between UPPS and prolapse repair with hysterectomy. Data on pregnancy outcomes following UPPS are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine-preserving prolapse surgery should be a surgical option for all patients considering surgical treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse unless contraindications exist. Uterine-preserving prolapse surgery should be offered using an individualized benefit and risk discussion of both approaches to help patients make an informed decision based on their own values.

Laparoscopic Hysteropexy: How, When and for Whom Is It an Alternative Option? A Narrative Review of the Literature

Background/Objectives: Surgical repair of apical prolapse most commonly includes hysterectomy. However, nowadays, the number of women who seek uterine preserving surgical treatment is increasing. Our objective is to review the current evidence on laparoscopic hysteropexy techniques, outcomes and appropriate patient selection. Methods: A literature search was carried out in MEDLINE/PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. The search was restricted to humans, female patients and currently used surgical procedures. Results: Laparoscopic hysteropexy was found to be associated with good anatomic outcomes, symptom improvement and low complication or reoperation rates. Conclusions: Laparoscopic hysteropexy appears to be a good alternative option for women who undergo surgical treatment for apical prolapse and desire preservation of the uterus. However, further prospective comparative studies, as well as longer follow-up periods, are necessary for evaluating long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of the method.

Comparison of laparoscopic hysteropectopexy and vaginal hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse

BACKGROUND

To study whether laparoscopic hysteropectopexy (LHP) can be substituted for vaginal hysterectomy (VH) in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), we compared VH with the relatively new procedure, LHP.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 176 women who underwent LHP (N.=54) or VH (N.=122) for a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) System stage 2 or higher pelvic organ prolapse between January 2011 and December 2019. We compared the surgical outcomes and overall rate of complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

The average length of hospitalization was 5.28 days for the LHP group and 7.08 days for the VH group. EBL (mL) in the LHP group was 32.2, whereas it was 47.7 in the VH group. The average operation time (min) was 68.2 in the LHP group and 98.9 in the VH group. Twenty-seven patients (22.1%) in the VH group had postoperative voiding difficulty compared with 2 patients (3.7%) in the LHP group. The overall number of intraoperative complications was 6 (11%) in the LHP group and 34 (27.9%) in the VH group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that LHP is more effective than VH in patients with POP. However, since the number of cases was small and retrospective studies are limited, we recommend a randomized controlled trial to be conducted in the future to confirm our results.

Vaginal hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: A 5-year cost-effectiveness Markov model

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to perform a 5-year cost-effectiveness analysis of transvaginal hysteropexy (HP) via sacrospinous ligament fixation (SS) or uterosacral ligament suspension (US) versus vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with apical suspension via sacrospinous ligament fixation (SS) or uterosacral ligament suspension (US) for the treatment of uterine prolapse.

DESIGN

A decision analytic model assessed the cost-effectiveness of the surgical intervention over a 5-year horizon.

SETTING

This model was constructed using TreeAge® software.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

Healthy women undergoing surgery for uterine prolapse were modeled.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to simulate the possible recurrence of prolapse. Recurrence rates, repeat surgery for surgical failures and complication rates were modeled. Base case, sensitivity analyses and probabilistic modeling were performed.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of <$100 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

Using the available prolapse recurrence rates and repeat surgery rates in the literature, both HP-SS and HP-US are cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of <$100 000 per QALY. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for HP-US compared to HP-SS is $90 738.14, while VH-US and VH-SS are both dominated strategies. HP-US is the optimal cost-effective strategy but decays exponentially with increasing probability of prolapse recurrence and need for repeat surgery after failed hysteropexy. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) favors sacrospinous hysteropexy until reaching a WTP threshold between $90 000 and $100 000.

CONCLUSION

Hysteropexy surgical strategies are cost-effective transvaginal surgical approaches for uterine prolapse. Vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension becomes more cost-effective with increasing probability of prolapse recurrence and need for repeat surgery after failed hysteropexy. Given the variability of prolapse recurrence rates in the literature, more comparative studies are needed to understand the cost-effectiveness relationship between these different surgical approaches.

Long-term development of surgical outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with anterior and posterior mesh extension

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Long-term durability and functional outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) remains to be confirmed. We set out to assess the development of surgical outcome in women with increasing minimal follow-up.

METHODS

All women after LSH with anterior and posterior mesh extension operated for advanced apical uterine prolapse at Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire clinic from July 2005 to June 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Last known follow-up information was used for the analysis and allocation into groups. The surgical success was defined as no prolapse beyond hymen, no symptomatic recurrence or no retreatment. Functional outcome was evaluated from validated questionnaires and presence of pelvic floor disorders. The outcomes were compared with preoperative state using chi-square and Fisher's test; p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

In total, 270 patients after LSH with a follow-up of up to 14.5 years were enrolled and divided into groups according to their last follow-up length: ≥ 1 year 242, ≥ 3 years 112, ≥ 5 years 76, ≥ 7 years 45 and ≥ 10 years 18 women. Increase of minimal follow-up was associated with gradual decrease in surgical success. Rates of stress urinary incontinence were unchanged by the surgery, while anal incontinence and constipation rates decreased significantly; 14.5% of women were operated on for SUI in the follow-up. The PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and VAS bother scores decreased significantly regardless of minimal follow-up length.

CONCLUSIONS

LSH with anterior and posterior mesh extension is a safe, effective and durable surgery with a positive long-term effect on quality of life. Although the surgical success gradually decreases, LSH remains a surgical success in most women.

Factors affecting women's decision between uterine-preserving versus hysterectomy-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse

BACKGROUND

Given the prevalence of women seeking surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP), there is a need to understand women's decision-making regarding uterine-preserving versus hysterectomy-based surgeries. Historically, hysterectomy-based surgeries have been the preferred treatment for pelvic organ prolapse; however, contemporary evidence supports uterine-preserving surgeries as equivalent. At present, the lack of information available to the general public and limited options presented at surgical consultation for pelvic organ prolapse may hinder women's autonomy as they navigate surgical treatment.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the factors affecting women's decision-making processes regarding uterine-preserving or hysterectomy-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

DESIGN

This is a qualitative study.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with women seeking surgery for pelvic organ prolapse to explore the factors affecting women's decision-making between hysterectomy-based and uterine-preserving surgeries.

RESULTS

Women (n = 26) used clinical and personal factors to determine which surgery was best. Women noted that the lack of evidence (clinical and/or anecdotal) available to them hindered their decision-making, causing them to rely more on their own interpretations of the evidence, what they perceived to be "normal," and what their surgeon recommended. Even with standardized discussion regarding the existing clinical equipoise between surgeries at the clinical consultation, some women still had misperceptions that hysterectomy-based surgery would convey the lowest risk of prolapse recurrence and be best for severe prolapse.

CONCLUSION

There is a need for more transparency in discussions about prolapse and the factors affecting women's decision-making for surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Clinicians should be prepared to offer the option of hysterectomy-based or uterine-preserving surgeries and to clearly explain the clinical equipoise between these procedures.

Sacrospinous Fixation and Vaginal Uterosacral Suspension-Evaluation in Uterine Preservation Surgery

IMPORTANCE

Vaginal hysteropexy can be performed via the uterosacral or the sacrospinous ligament(s), but little data exist comparing these routes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare prolapse recurrence, retreatment, and symptoms along with the incidence of adverse events between patients undergoing vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy and sacrospinous hysteropexy.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent vaginal uterosacral or sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) between 2015 and 2019. Anatomic failure was the primary outcome, defined as prolapse beyond the hymen. Composite failure was defined as anatomic failure, bulge symptoms, and/or retreatment for prolapse.

RESULTS

At 4 geographically diverse referral centers, 147 patients underwent SSHP and 114 underwent uterosacral hysteropexy. The 1-year follow-up rate was 32% (83/261) with no difference between groups. There were 10 (3.8%) anatomic failures: 3 (2%) sacrospinous and 7 (6.1%) uterosacral (P = 0.109). There was no difference in bulge symptoms (9.9%), composite failure (13%), or median prolapse stage (2).The overall incidence of complications was low (7%; 95% confidence interval, 4.12%-10.43%) with a higher rate of ureteral kinking in the uterosacral group (7% vs 1.4%, P = 0.023). With a median follow-up of 17 months, 4.6% underwent subsequent hysterectomy and 6.5% had treatment for uterine/cervical pathology.

CONCLUSIONS

One year after hysteropexy, 1 in 3 patients were available for follow-up, and there were no differences in prolapse recurrence between patients who underwent uterosacral hysteropexy versus SSHP. The incidence of adverse events was low, and less than 5% of patients underwent subsequent hysterectomy for prolapse.

Bilateral Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation with Vaginal Hysterectomy for Apical Uterovaginal Prolapse

Purpose

The aim of this retrospective study was to compare the anatomical and functional outcomes between bilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy (BSHP) and bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation with vaginal hysterectomy (BSLF/VH) in women with apical-predominant uterovaginal prolapse.

Methods

Clinical data from patients with symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) stage 2 or higher uterovaginal prolapse who underwent either BSHP (48 patients) or BSLF/VH (69 patients) between January 2014 and December 2018 were reviewed retrospectively. The primary outcome was the subjective satisfaction rate evaluated by Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and the secondary outcomes included objective anatomical success rates, impact on disease-specific quality of life evaluated by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire-12, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-Short Form 20, and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire 7, and surgical complications.

Results

After a median follow-up of 35 months (range, 25–58 months), all patients in both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in anatomical and functional outcomes (P<0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative subjective and objective results, sexual satisfaction outcomes, or disease-specific quality of life between the BSHP and BSLF/VH groups, and similar incidence rates of intraoperative and postoperative complications were also recorded.

Conclusions

The uterus-sparing BSHP procedure yielded noninferior anatomical and functional outcomes compared to the BSLF/VH procedure and could be adopted as an alternative to conventional hysterectomy-based native-tissue repair modalities for symptomatic apical-predominant uterovaginal prolapse.

Role of Hysteropexy in the Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss considerations for hysteropexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and summarize available literature comparing various hysteropexy techniques to analogous procedures involving hysterectomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hysteropexy for apical POP has increased in popularity in recent years, although anatomic factors and gynecologic cancer risk must be taken into account. Native tissue hysteropexy options include the LeFort colpocleisis, sacrospinous hysteropexy, and uterosacral hysteropexy. Although vaginal mesh was banned by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019, abdominal mesh sacrohysteropexy done either open or laparoscopically remains an option in the USA. Overall, short-term prolapse outcomes appear to be comparable between uterus-sparing approaches and hysterectomy, with less blood loss and shorter operating room time observed with the uterine-sparing approaches, although long-term outcome data remains variable and limited. Uterine-sparing apical POP repair may be offered to appropriate patients without certain risk factors, although longer-term data will be required to evaluate durability.

Satisfactory medium-long term patient reported outcomes after laparoscopic single-mesh sacrohysteropexy

Background: There is scarce information on the effectiveness of the laparoscopic single mesh sacrohysteropexy (smSHP). Attachment of a single sheet of flat mesh posteriorly to the cervix provides less mesh use and a less invasive distal mesh fixation. Objectives: To assess medium to long-term follow-up results of patients who underwent laparoscopic smSHP utilising a less invasive technique with single sheet flat mesh. Materials and Methods: In the present retrospective cohort study, the data of 71 women who underwent laparoscopic smSHP for apical uterine prolapse with or without colporrhaphy (anterior and/or posterior) at the urogynaecology unit of a university hospital between January 2008 and January 2020 was reviewed. Data was collected on demographics, presenting symptoms, preoperative findings, surgery, and postoperative outcomes. Main Outcome Measures: Medium to long-term patient-reported outcomes. Results: The median age of the study population was 44 years. Median follow-up duration was 5 years (1-12). Symptomatic recurrence over time and repeat surgery rates were 13.1% and 3.1% respectively. Comparison of the pre-operative and medium to long-term evaluation scores of the pelvic floor distress inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and assessment of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) revealed long-standing improvement in pelvic floor dysfunction. Conclusions: Laparoscopic smSHP appears to be successful and safe with low recurrence and complication rates and provides satisfactory patient reported outcomes. What’s new? Medium to long-term patient-reported outcomes based on PFDI-20 and PGI-I surveys are satisfactory following smSHP.

How and on whom to perform uterine-preserving surgery for uterine prolapse

The demand for uterine preservation in pelvic reconstructive surgery for uterovaginal prolapse is steadily increasing, and several procedures have been introduced, such as sacrospinous hysteropexy, uterosacral hysteropexy, sacrohysteropexy, and hysteropectopexy. However, the benefits and risks of uterine-preserving surgeries are not well understood. This review discusses the current evidence surrounding uterine-preserving surgery for uterovaginal prolapse repair. This may help surgeons and patients have a balanced discussion on how and on whom to perform uterine-preserving surgery.

A novel bilateral anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy technique for apical pelvic organ prolapse repair via the vaginal route: a cohort study

Background

Uterine-preserving techniques are becoming increasingly popular in the last decade. This investigation evaluates a novel hysteropexy technique using a mesh in sling-alike configuration [Splentis (Promedon, Argentina)] which is attached anteriorly to the cervix and suspended to the sacrospinous ligaments bilaterally via the vaginal route in women undergoing surgery for uterine prolapse.

Methods

This was a single-center cohort study, evaluating women who underwent transvaginal hysteropexy with Splentis for primary uterine descent. Data have been collected prospectively as part of the quality assurance system. Primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a combined endpoint including the absence of a vaginal bulge symptom and no retreatment of apical prolapse. A validated questionnaire to evaluate quality-of-life and prolapse symptoms was utilized. Descriptive analysis was applied. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare paired samples. The significance level was set at 5%.

Results

A total of 103 women with a median age of 68.0 [IQR 11.5] years with a median apical POP-Q stage of 3 were included. The median surgery time was 22 [IQR 12] minutes and no intraoperative complication occurred. After a median follow-up time of 17 months, treatment success was achieved in 91 (89.2%) patients and quality of life and patient report outcomes improved significantly (p < 0.001). Mesh exposure occurred in 3 (2.9%) patients. Of these, two patients required surgical revision, and one patient was treated conservatively. One patient required partial mesh removal due to dyspareunia.

Conclusion

Bilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy with Splentis offers an efficacious and safe alternative for apical compartment repair, incorporating the advantages of pelvic floor reconstruction via the vaginal route.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-022-06486-4.

Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several authors have recently compared the outcomes and complications of surgical procedures that preserve or remove the uterus in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following the publication of several high quality randomized control trials on this topic we performed a new systematic review and meta analysis of this data.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, EBSCO host, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled and cohort trials of uterine sparing prolapse repair (hysteropexy) versus hysterectomy with suspension. A total of 1285 patients from 14 studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Uterine sparing procedures (hysteropexy) were comparable to hysterectomy with suspension for recurrence rates (RR = 0.908, 95% CI [0.385, 2.143]), reoperation rates (RR = 1.517, 95% CI [0.802, 2.868]), length of hospital stay, (SMD =  - 0.159 days, 95% CI [-0.375, 0.057]), voiding dysfunction (RR = 1.089, 95% CI [0.695, 1.706]), and intraoperative blood loss (SMD =  - 0.339, 95% CI [-0.631, 0.047]). However, hysteropexy had shorter operative time than hysterectomy with suspension (SMD =  - 1.191 h, 95% CI [-1.836, -0.545]), and fewer visceral injuries (RR = 0.421, 95% CI [0.244, 0.725]).

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in the outcomes or major complications of uterine preserving surgical procedures versus those which include hysterectomy in the treatment of POP. Hysteropexy procedures may be associated with a shorter operative time and fewer visceral injuries. This is consistent with older analyses.

Intermediate term outcomes after transvaginal uterine-preserving surgery in women with uterovaginal prolapse

Introduction and hypothesis

There is growing interest in and performance of uterine-preserving prolapse repairs. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) recurrence 2 years following transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy (USLH) and sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy (SSLH).

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study with a cross-sectional survey of women who underwent transvaginal uterine-preserving POP surgery from May 2016 to December 2017. Patients were included if they underwent either USLH or SSLH. POP recurrence was defined as a composite of subjective symptoms and/or retreatment. A cross-sectional survey was used to assess pelvic floor symptoms and patient satisfaction.

Results

A total of 47 women met the criteria. Mean age was 52.8 ± 12.5 years, and all had a preoperative POP-Q stage of 2 (55.3%) or 3 (44.7%). Thirty (63.8%) underwent SSLH and 17 (36.2%) underwent USLH. There were no differences in patient characteristics or perioperative data. There was no difference in composite recurrence (26.7% [8] vs 23.5% [4]) and retreatment (6.7% [2] vs 0%) retrospectively between SSLH and USLH groups at 22.6 months. Survey response rate was 80.9% (38) with a response time of 30.7 (28.0–36.6) months. The majority of patients (84.2%) reported POP symptom improvement, and both groups reported great satisfaction (89.5%). In respondents, 13.2% (5) reported subjective recurrence and 5.3% (2) underwent retreatment, with no differences between hysteropexy types. There were no differences in other pelvic floor symptoms.

Conclusions

Although 1 in 4 women experienced subjective POP recurrence after transvaginal uterine-preserving prolapse repair and <5% underwent retreatment at 2 years, our results must be interpreted with caution given our small sample size. No differences in outcomes were identified between hysteropexy types; however, additional studies should be performed to confirm these findings. Both hysteropexy approaches were associated with great patient satisfaction.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00192-021-04987-5

Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Controversies in Surgical Treatment

This article discusses a few of the most prominent controversies currently confronting providers and patients when planning for surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse including preoperative counseling and patient preparedness, preoperative urodynamics and concomitant anti-incontinence procedures, uterine preservation, total versus supracervical hysterectomy at the time of sacrocolpopexy, same-day discharge, and use of telemedicine for routine postoperative care. These current controversies reflect some of the larger questions and themes confronting the field at this time, and this discussion serves to highlight opportunities for further research and stimulate the constructive debate that moves the field forward.

The Risk of Primary Uterine and Cervical Cancer After Hysteropexy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine the rate of subsequent uterine/cervical cancer after hysteropexy compared with hysterectomy with apical prolapse repair.

METHODS

The study used a retrospective cohort of women with uterovaginal prolapse using the Cerner Health Facts database between 2010 and 2018. We identified sacrospinous or uterosacral ligament suspensions or sacral colpopexy/hysteropexy and excluded those with previous hysterectomy. We used the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes for endometrial cancer/hyperplasia and cervical cancer and then reviewed each case, excluding those whose cancer existed at time of prolapse repair. Given that 0 cancer cases were identified, we used Wilson, Jeffreys, Agresti-Coull, Clopper-Pearson, and Rule of 3 to define 95% confidence intervals to estimate the highest possible rate of cancer in each cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 8,927 patients underwent apical prolapse surgery. Of 4,510 with uterovaginal prolapse, 755 (16.7%) underwent hysteropexy. Seventy one with hysterectomy and 5 with hysteropexy had codes for subsequent gynecologic cancer but were excluded on further review. This left 0 gynecologic cancer cases with the largest 95% confidence interval of 0%-0.61% for hysteropexy versus 0%-0.13% for hysterectomy (P > 0.05). The hysteropexy cohort was older (62.6 years vs 57.3 years, P < 0.0001), more likely to have public insurance (51.0% vs 37.9%, P < 0.0001), and less likely to smoke (4.5% vs 7.6%, P = 0.0026). Median follow-up was longer after hysteropexy (1,480 days vs 1,164 days, P < 0.0009).

CONCLUSIONS

We can say with 95% certainty that uterine or cervical cancer will develop after hysteropexy in fewer than 0.61% of women, which was not different if hysterectomy was performed. This should be included in preoperative counseling for hysteropexy. Studying longer follow-up after hysteropexy may capture more cases of subsequent cancer development.

Prospective analysis of transvaginal mesh hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of using transvaginal mesh to correct uterine prolapse by hysteropexy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective study of 40 subjects with bothersome uterine prolapse. Inclusion criteria were bothersome perception of a vaginal bulge on Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory short form (PFDI-20) and having a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) point C of -2 or worse. Exclusionary criteria included inability to consent, history of pelvic malignancies, or any prior prolapse repair. Eligible subjects were treated with transvaginal mesh hysteropexy between March 2016 and July 2018 for a primary outcome of composite success, which was defined by a POP-Q point C value of -2 or higher, PFDI-20 question 3 indicating no bothersome perception of prolapse, and no retreatment. Secondary outcomes included responses to condition-specific and quality-of-life questionnaires, satisfaction/regret, and complications.

RESULTS

Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy was performed in 40 subjects. The majority (68%) had advanced stage (III/IV) uterine prolapse. At a median follow-up of 12 months, there was an 84% composite success, and considering only anatomic criteria (POP-Q point C < -1), there was a 92% success. No subject required reintervention for recurrent or persistent uterine prolapse. There were no cases of mesh exposures. In terms of safety, one subject required a blood transfusion for symptomatic anemia (Clavien-Dindo grade II), and one subject reported de novo dyspareunia from a perineal band that was released in office at 6 months (grade IIIa), but otherwise there were no serious immediate or late complications. There were significant improvements in both condition-specific and quality-of-life assessments from baseline. Subject satisfaction and acceptance for the procedure were high.

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center case series of 40 women with bothersome uterovaginal prolapse, transvaginal mesh hysteropexy appears safe and effective for correcting advanced stage uterine prolapse at the short term. A future multicenter controlled trial would be needed to determine efficacy against native tissue repair.

Update in fertility-sparing native-tissue procedures for pelvic organ prolapse

Uterine-sparing prolapse surgery has been gaining back popularity with clinicians and patients. Although both prosthetic and native-tissue surgery procedures are described, the latter is progressively regaining a central role in pelvic reconstructive surgery, owing to a lack of mesh-related complications. Available native-tissue procedures have different advantages and pitfalls, as well as different evidence profiles. Most of them offer anatomical and subjective outcomes comparable with those of hysterectomy-based procedures. Moreover, native-tissue procedures in young women desiring childbearing allow to avoid synthetic material implantation, which may lead to potentially serious complications during pregnancy. As a consequence, we do think that offering a reconstructive native-tissue procedure for uterine preservation (with the exception of the Manchester procedure) is the safest option in women wishing for pregnancy. Sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy and high uterosacral ligament hysteropexy may be considered first-line options in consideration of the higher level of evidence and lack of adverse obstetrical outcomes.

Sacrohysteropexy: A Way to Spare the Uterus

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To show the safety and feasibility of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for treating uterine prolapse.

DESIGN

An educational video to explain the laparoscopic steps of this procedure by focusing on the main anatomic landmarks and on tips and tricks to avoid complications.

SETTING

A tertiary care university hospital.

INTERVENTIONS

Laparoscopic sacropexy with uterus preservation for grade 3 apical defect.

CONCLUSION

This video shows a stepwise approach to laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy demonstrating its feasibility and safety. There is a wide choice of surgical procedures and approaches focused on pelvic organ prolapse repair. Since many years, uterine prolapse has been an indication for hysterectomy, regardless of the occurrence of uterine disease and patients' desires. With the introduction of minimally invasive surgery, the uterine-sparing procedures are being increasingly taken into account, especially in young women [1]. Sacrohysteropexy is a uterus-sparing procedure that allows for a reduction in operating time, intraoperative blood loss, mesh-related complications, and surgical costs [2]. Furthermore, this technique has a high success rate with an objective cure rate of 100% for the apical compartment and 80% for all compartments and does not seem to increase the pelvic organ prolapse recurrence rate [3]. Sacropexy is not a life-threatening procedure, but its main objective is to restore functional anatomy with the primary goal of improvement in patient's quality of life. Moreove, no difference has been found with or without uterus preservation in term of postoperative recurrence rate or ent's quality of life [4]. However, high patient satisfaction has been recently reported; therefore, uterine preservation should be considered during patient's counseling.

A new technique of laparoscopic fixation of the uterus to the anterior abdominal wall with the use of overfascial mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse

Introduction and hypothesis

Pelvic organ prolapse is one of the most common pathological conditions in postmenopausal women. There is still a lack of fully effective and safe surgical techniques, especially in the advanced stages of apical defects. The purpose of the video is to present a new technique of laparoscopic treatment in women with an advanced stage of genital prolapse, stage III and IV according to the POP-Q scale. The technique involves uterine fixation for the anterior abdominal wall using overfascial mesh.

Methods

We used a live-action surgical demonstration to describe laparoscopic fixation of the uterus to the anterior abdominal wall with the use of overfascial mesh.

Results

This video provides a step-by-step approach to laparoscopic fixation of the uterus to the anterior abdominal wall with the use of overfascial mesh. The video can be used to educate and train those performing female pelvic reconstructive surgery.

Conclusions

Based on our experience, this technique of laparoscopic suspension of the uterus to the anterior abdominal wall with the use of overfascial mesh is an effective, safe, and easy procedure for the treatment of advanced stages of pelvic organ prolapse.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00192-020-04287-4) contains supplementary material. This video is also available to watch on http://link.springer.com/. Please search for this article by the article title or DOI number, and on the article page click on ‘Supplementary Material’

Complications and reoperation after pelvic organ prolapse, impact of hysterectomy, surgical approach and surgeon experience

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is associated with specific complications. Our primary objective was to assess the recurrence requiring reoperation after prolapse surgery, and our secondary objectives were to assess the early complications and secondary surgery for urinary incontinence.

METHODS

Retrospective study of a population-based cohort of all hospital or outpatient stays including POP surgery from 2008 to 2014, using the French nationwide discharge summary database. We calculated the rates of hospital readmission following surgery as well as the rates of reoperation for recurrent prolapse and subsequent procedures performed for urinary incontinence.

RESULTS

A total of 310,938 patients had undergone surgery for POP. Two hundred fourteen (0.07%) patients died, and 0.45% were admitted to an intensive care unit; 4.4% of the patients underwent surgery for the recurrence of prolapse. Concomitant hysterectomy in the first surgery was associated with a significantly lower risk of POP surgery recurrence: (hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.51 [0.49; 0.53]). A total of 1386 (2.5%) patients were readmitted to the hospital for early (30-day) complications of prolapse surgery. The most frequent reasons for early readmission were local infection (32.8%), hemorrhage (21.4%) and pain (17.2%). Risk factors for complications were obesity, hospitals with low levels of activity and associated incontinence surgery; 4.6% of the patients required secondary surgery for urinary incontinence; obesity was a risk factor (HR [95% CI] = 1.12 [1.01; 1.24]), and the vaginal route was a protective factor (odds ratio = 1.86 for laparoscopy, 1.44 for laparotomy and 1.25 for multiple approaches).

CONCLUSIONS

POP surgery is associated with low rates of complication and recurrence. Complications occurred most commonly following combined surgeries for both prolapse and incontinence and in hospitals with low surgical volumes. Concomitant hysterectomy appears to be protective for the need for additional prolapse surgery, and the vaginal route leads to a lower frequency of secondary surgery for urinary incontinence.

Revisiting current treatment options for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a contemporary literature review

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affect many women in their lifetime. In this review, we describe and evaluate the latest treatment options for SUI and POP, including the controversy around transvaginal mesh (TVM) use. Growing evidence supports the utilization of pelvic floor muscle training as first-line treatment for both SUI and POP. Vaginal pessaries continue to be an effective and reversible option to manage SUI and POP symptoms. The midurethral sling remains the gold standard for surgical treatment of SUI, although patients and clinicians should acknowledge the potentially serious complications of TVM. Burch urethropexy and pubovaginal sling offer good SUI cure and may be preferred in women wishing to avoid mesh implants; however, their operative morbidities and more challenging surgical approach may limit their use. Site-specific cystocele or rectocele repairs may be indicated for isolated anterior or posterior vaginal compartment prolapse; however, in women with more severe POP, evidence supports using a vaginal native-tissue repair involving apical suspension as the primary surgical technique. Although abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexies are both effective in treating POP, their failure and mesh complication rates increase with time. There is insufficient evidence to support the widespread use of uterine-preserving surgical POP repairs at present due to the lack of long-term data. Routine TVM use is not recommended in POP surgeries and should only be considered on a case-by-case basis by trained surgeons, primarily in women with multiple risk factors for POP recurrence. In general, clinicians should individualize SUI and POP treatment options for women based on their symptoms, comorbidities, and risk factors for mesh-related complications.

The resurrection of sacrospinous fixation: unilateral apical sling hysteropexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The apical compartment is a keystone in POP treatment. Sacrospinous fixation, suggested half a century ago, today is still one of the most popular and efficient methods of colpo-hysteropexy. However, it has specific side effects: chronic pain syndrome, dyspareunia and а high rate of cystocele de novo. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy with a synthetic apical sling combined with anterior subfascial colporrhaphy.

METHODS

Following the suggested technique, 174 women with anterior-apical prolapse underwent surgery. The follow-up period took 12 months. Pre- and postoperative examination included: urogynecological examination (POP-Q), uroflowmetry, ultrasound of the bladder and filling in of validated questionnaires (PFDI-20, PISQ-12).

RESULTS

The mean surgery time was 26 ± 7.84 min. No cases of damage of the bladder or rectum or of intraoperative clinically significant bleeding were noted. At the 12-month follow-up, the recurrence rate in the apical compartment was 0.7% (1/147) and in the anterior compartment 7.4% (11/147). The efficacy of the surgery reached 96.5%. During 12 months of follow-up, no cases of mesh exposure or chronic pelvic pain syndrome were detected. The incidence of dyspareunia de novo was observed in just one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

A unilateral sacrospinous fixation with a synthetic mesh (apical sling) combined with anterior subfascial colporrhaphy enhances the anatomical efficacy of surgery. It also helps to avoid specific side effects of traditional sacrospinous fixation.

[Uterine preservation or not during prolapse surgery: Review of the literature]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of hysterectomy in case of genital prolapse on the anatomical and functional results, and on per and post operative complications compared with uterine preservation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a review of the Pubmed, Medline, Embase and Cochrane literature using the following terms and MeSH (Medical Subject Headings of the National Library of Medicine): uterine prolapse; genital prolapse; prolapse surgery; vaginal prolapse surgery; abdominal prolapse surgery; hysterectomy; hysteropexy; sacrocolpopexy; surgical meshes; complications; sexuality; neoplasia; urinary; incontinence; cancer.

RESULTS

Among the 168 abstracts studied, 63 publications were retained. Whatever performance of hysterectomy or not, anatomical and functional results were similar in abdominal surgery (sacrocolpopexy) (OR=2.21 [95% CI: 0.33-14.67]) or vaginal surgery (OR=1.07 [95% CI: 0.38-2.99]). There was no difference in terms of urinary symptoms or sexuality after surgery. Hysterectomy was associated to a higher morbidity (bleeding, prolonged operating time, longer hospital stay), to an increased risk of mesh exposure particularly in case of total hysterectomy (8.6%; 95% CI: 6.3-11).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of evidence of superiority in terms of anatomical and functional outcomes, with an increased rate of complications, concomitant hysterectomy with prolapse surgery should probably not be performed routinely.