Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques

Native tissue repair of the female pelvic floor: A four-level surgical concept

This review describes our experience with native tissue repair of the visceral pelvic fascia, the perineum, and anal sphincters in women. We propose that complex repair of the pelvic floor should consider vaginal support in all three anatomical Delancey's levels, together with more caudal structures-the external and internal anal sphincters. Original illustrations were created to facilitate the understanding of the complex anatomy of common multi-level defects. As the integrity of connective tissue adds to various aspects of the delicate function of the female pelvic floor, it is complete and as perfect as possible repair is a common goal of both gynecologists and colorectal specialists.

Treatment outcomes of Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy for mid-compartment prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

To compare the effectiveness and safety of Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of mid-compartment prolapse in women.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective, or retrospective studies comparing the Manchester procedure and vaginal hysterectomy up to July 2024. Primary outcomes included anatomical recurrence, subjective recurrence, overall complication rate, and reoperation. Secondary outcomes included estimated blood loss, operative time, and relevant subgroup analyses. This study has been registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42024575874.

RESULTS

A total of 11 783 cases from 1 RCT, 1 prospective study, and 9 retrospective studies were included. For the primary outcomes, the Manchester procedure demonstrated significantly lower subjective recurrence rates (risk ratio [RR] = 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.98; I2 = 0%; p = 0.03) and reoperation rates (RR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.43-0.89; I2 = 64%; p = 0.009) compared with vaginal hysterectomy, with no significant difference in anatomical recurrence rates (RR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.58-1.21; I2 = 54%; p = 0.34) and overall complication rates (RR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.79-1.00; I2 = 0%; p = 0.06) between the two groups. Secondary outcomes indicated that the Manchester procedure had a significantly shorter operative time and less estimated blood loss (p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis indicated that the Manchester procedure was associated with lower short-term (1-3 years) subjective recurrence rates (RR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.78-0.98; I2 = 0%; p = 0.02) and reoperation rates (RR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.55-0.92; I2 = 0%; p = 0.008). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of short-term anatomical recurrence rates or in mid- to long-term (>3 years) subjective recurrence rates, anatomical recurrence rates, and reoperation rates (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the rates of anatomical recurrence and overall complications for Manchester procedure and vaginal hysterectomy are similar. Manchester procedure appears to have a lower subjective recurrence and reoperation rate in the short term, but this advantage was not observed in mid- to long-term follow-up. Further high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

One in 5 females will have surgery to treat pelvic organ prolapse in their lifetime. Uterine-preserving surgery involving suspension of the uterus is an increasingly popular alternative to the traditional use of hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension to treat pelvic organ prolapse; however, comparative evidence with native tissue repairs remains limited in scope and quality.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 1-year outcomes between hysterectomy-based and uterine-preserving native tissue prolapse surgeries performed through minimally invasive approaches.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a nonrandomized design with patients self-selecting their surgical group to integrate a pragmatic, patient-centered, and autonomy-focused approach. Participants chose between uterine-preserving surgery or hysterectomy-based surgery, guided by neutral evidence-based discussions and individualized decision-making, with support from fellowship-trained urogynecologists. Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on high-dimensional propensity scores was used to balance baseline differences across surgical groups in an effort to resemble a randomized clinical trial. A prospective cohort study of 321 participants with stage ≥2 prolapse involving the uterus who desired surgical treatment were recruited between 2020 and 2022 and followed to 1 year (retention >90%). Patients chose to receive uterine-preserving pelvic organ prolapse surgery through hysteropexy (n=151) or hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension (n=170; reference group), with repair of anterior and/or posterior prolapse if indicated. The primary outcome was anatomic prolapse recurrence within 1 year, defined as apical descent ≥50% of the total vaginal length. Secondary outcomes were perioperative, functional, clinical, and healthcare outcomes measured at 6 weeks and 1 year. Inverse probability of treatment weighted linear regression and modified Poisson regression were used to estimate adjusted mean differences and relative risks, respectively.

RESULTS

Apical anatomic recurrence rates at 1 year were 17.2% following hysterectomy and 7.5% following uterine-preservation, resulting in an adjusted relative risk of 0.35 (95% CI 0.15, 0.83). Uterine-preserving surgery was associated with shorter length of surgery (adjusted mean difference -0.68 hours [-0.80, -0.55]) and hospitalization (adjusted mean difference -4.34 hours [-7.91, -0.77]), less use of any opioids within 24 hours (adjusted relative risk 0.79 [0.65, 0.97]), and fewer procedural complications (adjusted relative risk 0.19 [0.04, 0.83]) than hysterectomy. Up to 1 year, uterine-preserving surgery was associated with lower risk of composite recurrence (stage ≥2 prolapse in any compartment or retreatment; adjusted relative risk 0.47 [0.32, 0.69]) than hysterectomy, driven by anatomic outcomes. There were no clinically meaningful differences in functional or healthcare outcomes between surgical groups.

CONCLUSION

This study adds real-world evidence to the growing body of research supportive of uterine-preserving surgery as a safe, efficient, and effective alternative to hysterectomy during native tissue prolapse repair. Given mounting evidence on safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of uterine-preserving surgery and its alignment with the preferences of approximately half of patients to keep their uterus, the standard of care should include routine offering and patient choice between uterine-preserving and hysterectomy-based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

Literature review, surgical decision making algorithm, and AGREE II-S comparison of national and international recommendations and guidelines in pelvic organ prolapse surgery

The average lifespan has increased over time due to improvements in quality of life, leading to an aging population that stays healthy for longer. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP), whether uterine or vaginal, is a problem that severely impairs quality of life and imposes significant restrictions. The present study provides the reader with a summary of the many surgical techniques used in POP surgery, comparing international guidelines, offering an algorithm that is simple to understand, and allows the reader to quickly choose the table that includes the best surgical therapy for each individual. Using relevant keywords, the writers searched the PubMed and Scopus databases for relevant publications from 2000 to April 2023. Studies with cases of oncologic disorders or prior hysterectomy performed for another reason were not included in the analysis. Ten distinct international guidelines are highlighted and examined in the present study. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II-S (AGREE II-S) method to assess their quality, and incorporated the results into the conclusion. Worldwide, anterior colporrhaphy is the preferred method of treating anterior compartment abnormalities, and mesh is virtually always used when recurrence occurs (which happens in about half of the cases). Worldwide, posterior colporrhaphy is commonly used to repair posterior compartment abnormalities. Only a few national guidelines (the Iranian guideline, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica [AOGS], and the German-speaking countries) permit the use of mesh or xenograft in cases of recurrence. There is agreement on the abdominal approach (sacrocolpopexy) with mesh for treating apical deformities. Sacrospinous-hysteropexy is the standard method used to guide the vaginal approach; mesh is typically used to aid in this process. There are just three recommendations that do not include vaginal operations: HSE, AOGS, and Iran. Of obliteration techniques, colpocleisis is unquestionably the best. In conclusion, our analysis highlights the significance of customized methods in POP surgery, taking into account the requirements and preferences of each patient. To choose the best surgical therapy, criteria and patient features must be carefully considered.

Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine-sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal mesh use have been largely abandoned.

OBJECTIVES

To provide up-to-date evidence by examining only studies investigating techniques currently in use for POP repair.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing surgical procedures for POP with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Studies describing open abdominal approaches or transvaginal mesh implantation were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on extracted data reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included. Hysterectomy and uterine-sparing procedures did not differ in reoperation rate (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.74-1.17), intraoperative major (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.79-2.26) and minor (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.79-2.4) complications, postoperative major (OR 1.42; 95% CI 0.85-2.37) and minor (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.9-1.53) complications, and objective (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.92-2.07) or subjective (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.8-1.88) success. Uterine preservation was associated with a shorter operative time (-22.7 min; 95% CI -16.92 to -28.51 min), shorter hospital stay (-0.35 days, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.65 days), and less blood loss (-61.7 mL; 95% CI -31.3 to -92.1 mL). When only studies using a laparoscopic approach for both arms were considered, no differences were observed in investigated outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No major differences were observed in POP outcomes between procedures with and without concomitant hysterectomy. The decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be tailored on individual factors.

Anterior approach sacrospinous hysteropexy: native tissue compared with mesh-augmented repair for primary uterovaginal prolapse management

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) was popularized by transvaginal mesh kits. Following mesh-kit market withdrawal, we hypothesized similar efficacy through native-tissue reattachment of the pubocervical fascia with fixation of the anterior cervix to the sacrospinous ligament. Few analyses for anterior native-tissue versus mesh-augmented SSH exist.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of women who underwent transvaginal anterior SSH between 01 January 2016 and 31 December 2022 was performed. Women who underwent a mesh-augmented (Uphold Lite Vaginal Support System™) versus native-tissue repair were compared. Composite success was defined as no bulge symptoms, no retreatment, and no recurrence beyond the hymen with apex nondescended > one third of the total vaginal length. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were obtained as indicated.

RESULTS

Of 223 women screened, inclusion criteria were met by 124 (40 mesh-augmented; 84 native-tissue). There was no difference in pre-operative characteristics between groups. Composite success was demonstrated in 95.2% of women with a median follow-up of 224 days (range: 30-988). Two women in the mesh-augmented group reported bulge symptoms and underwent re-treatment with a pessary. Four women in the native-tissue group reported bulge symptoms; 3 underwent re-treatment (2 pessary, 1 surgery). There were no differences in composite success rates between groups (p=0.954). There were additionally no differences in intra-operative (p=0.752) or post-operative (p=0.292) complication rates between the groups. There were no mesh-related complications, including exposure or chronic pelvic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Ninety-five percent of women achieved surgical success and the use of mesh augmentation did not confer added benefit in terms of efficacy or complications when compared with native tissue. Further long-term data are needed to continue our assessment of native-tissue anterior SSH.

Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

In many countries, sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most commonly practiced uterus-preserving technique in women undergoing a first operation for pelvic organ prolapse. However, there are no direct comparisons of outcomes after sacrospinous hysteropexy vs an older technique, the Manchester procedure.

Objective

To compare success of sacrospinous hysteropexy vs the Manchester procedure for the surgical treatment of uterine descent.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands among 434 adult patients undergoing a first surgical treatment for uterine descent that did not protrude beyond the hymen.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned to undergo sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 217) or Manchester procedure (n = 217).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a composite outcome of success, defined as absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by a standardized vaginal support quantification system, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of prolapse retreatment (pessary or surgery) within 2 years after the operation. The predefined noninferiority margin was 9%. Secondary outcomes were anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and surgery-related complications.

Results

Among 393 participants included in the as-randomized analysis (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 151 of 196 (77.0%) in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 172 of 197 (87.3%) in the Manchester procedure group achieved the composite outcome of success. Sacrospinous hysteropexy did not meet the noninferiority criterion of -9% for the lower limit of the CI (risk difference, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.8% to -2.8%; P = .63 for noninferiority). At 2-year follow-up, perioperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Based on the composite outcome of surgical success 2 years after primary uterus-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery for uterine descent, these results support a finding that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure.

Trial Registration

TrialRegister.nl Identifier: NTR 6978.

Cervical cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The Manchester procedure is a successful operation to treat uterine prolapse. However, the influence on cervical cancer remains unknown. We hypothesized a lower risk of cervical cancer after the Manchester procedure.

METHODS

We included all Danish women undergoing the Manchester procedure during 1977-2018 (N = 23,935). Women undergoing anterior colporrhaphy (N = 51,008) were included as references due to comparable health-seeking behaviors. The study cohort is as previously described. We assessed the risk of cervical cancer mortality after the Manchester procedure versus anterior colporrhaphy using cumulated incidence plots and Cox hazard regressions. We applied Fisher's exact test to compare the distribution of histological subtypes after the operations.

RESULTS

Generally, few women were diagnosed with cervical cancer (0.1% after Manchester procedure and 0.2% after anterior colporrhaphy). After the Manchester procedure, the risk of cervical cancer was reduced (HR 0.60 [95% CI 0.39-0.94]). Furthermore, we found a slightly reduced risk of overall death (HR 0.96 [95% 0.94-0.99]), but no association regarding death due to cervical cancer (HR 0.66 [95% 0.34-1.25]). The distribution of histological subtypes was not changed.

CONCLUSIONS

Women undergoing the Manchester procedure are at lower risk of being diagnosed with cervical cancer, while the risk of cancer specific mortality is unchanged compared to women undergoing anterior colporrhaphy. Based on this study, we cannot recommend that women exit ordinary screening programs for human papillomavirus/cervical dysplasia after a Manchester procedure.

Stress Urinary Incontinence After Operations for Uterine Prolapse: A Nationwide Cohort Study

IMPORTANCE

Concomitant surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) operations are debated.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess the risk of an SUI operation after a uterine prolapse operation and compare the risk after the Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a nationwide historical cohort study including women with no history of hysterectomy undergoing the Manchester procedure (n = 6065) or vaginal hysterectomy (n = 9,767) for POP during 1998 to 2018. We excluded women with previous surgery for SUI and POP, concomitant surgery for SUI (n = 34, 0.2%), and diagnosed with gynecological cancer before or within 90 days from surgery. Women were followed up until SUI operation/death/emigration/diagnosis of gynecological cancer/December 31, 2018, whichever came first. Women undergoing the Manchester procedure were censored if they had undergone hysterectomy.We assessed the rate of SUI surgery with cumulative incidence plots. We performed Cox Regression to analyze the risk of SUI surgery, adjusting for age, calendar year, income level, concomitant surgery in anterior and posterior compartments, and diagnosis of SUI before POP operation.

RESULTS

We found that 12.4% women with and 1.6% without SUI diagnosed before the POP surgery who underwent SUI surgery within 10 years.During follow-up (median, 8.5 years), 129 (2.1%) underwent SUI surgery after the Manchester procedure and 175 (1.8%) after vaginal hysterectomy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.06 [0.84-1.35]).

CONCLUSIONS

Of women diagnosed with SUI before POP operation 1 in 8 subsequently underwent SUI surgery. Few women not diagnosed with SUI subsequently underwent SUI surgery. There was no difference in risk of SUI after the Manchester procedure and vaginal hysterectomy.

Endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

We aimed to investigate whether the Manchester procedure affects the risk and prognosis of endometrial cancer.

METHODS

All Danish residents have a personal number permitting linkage of nationwide registers on the individual level enabling epidemiological studies with lifelong follow-up. We performed a nationwide historical cohort study including Danish women born before 2000 undergoing the Manchester procedure (N = 23,935) during 1977-2018. We included women undergoing anterior colporrhaphy as a reference group (N = 51,008) because of comparable inclination to consult a doctor and clinical similarities. Main outcomes were the number of women diagnosed with endometrial cancer, the stage of endometrial cancer at time of diagnosis, and cancer-specific and overall mortality. We followed the cohort until endometrial cancer/death/emigration/hysterectomy/31 December 2018. We performed chi-square test for trend to compare the diagnostic stage and Cox regressions to analyze the risk of endometrial cancer and mortality. The models were adjusted for age, calendar year, income level, and parity.

RESULTS

During follow-up (median 13 years), 271 (1.13%) women were diagnosed with endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure and 520 (1.05%) after anterior colporrhaphy. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for endometrial cancer was 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86-1.16]. No difference in stage of cancer was found (p = 0.18) nor when stratifying for calendar year. The HR for cancer-specific mortality and overall mortality after the Manchester procedure was 0.87 (95% CI 0.65-1.16) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.77-1.12), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The Manchester procedure does not affect the risk or prognosis of endometrial cancer.

Vaginal vault prolapse and recurrent surgery: A nationwide observational cohort study

INTRODUCTION

In surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse the recurrence rate is about 30% and the importance of apical support was recently highlighted. In surgical randomized controlled studies, the external validity can be compromised because the surgical outcomes often depend on surgical volume. Therefore, we sought to study outcomes of surgical treatment in patients with vaginal vault prolapse in a nationwide setting with a variety of surgical volumes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a nationwide cohort study. All patients with a vaginal vault prolapse undergoing surgery, between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018, were identified from the Swedish National Quality Register of Gynecological Surgery, GynOp. The primary outcome was the frequency of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse surgery within 2 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported vaginal bulging, operative time, estimated blood loss and 1-year postoperative complications.

RESULTS

In 1812 patients with vaginal vault prolapse, 538 (30%) had a sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) with graft, 441 (24%) underwent SSLF without graft, and 200 (11%) underwent minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (SCP) or sacrocervicopexy (SCerP). A significantly higher proportion of patients undergoing recurrent pelvic organ prolapse surgery was seen in SSLF without graft than in SSLF with graft (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.6). Patient-reported sensation of vaginal bulging 1 year after surgery was higher in the SSLF group without graft than in the SSLF group with graft (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.8) and in the SCP/SCerP group (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.4). Finally, we found a significantly higher rate of complications 1 year after surgery in SSLF without graft (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.2) and in SSLF with graft (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.2) compared with SCP/SCerP.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with vaginal vault prolapse, SSLF without graft was associated with a higher frequency of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse surgery compared with SSLF with graft, and a higher subjective relapse rate compared with SCP/SCerP and SSLF with graft. Additionally, the complication rate 1 year after primary surgery was higher in SSLF both with and without graft than in SCP/SCerP.

Recurrent surgery in uterine prolapse: A nationwide register study

INTRODUCTION

One in three women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) undergoing surgery have a relapse. Currently, no optimal surgical treatment has been identified for correcting a uterine prolapse. This population-based register study aims to compare the relapse rate in patients with uterine prolapse undergoing hysterectomy with suspension or uterine-sparing surgical procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All women with uterine prolapse undergoing prolapse surgery in Sweden from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, were identified from the Gynecological Operation Register (GynOp). The primary outcome was the number of recurrent POP surgeries up to December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

Sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) without graft and sacrohysteropexy (SHP) were associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrent POP surgery (SSHP without graft: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.6, 95% CI 2.0-3.5; SHP aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8-3.7) and patients describing a sense of globe (SSHP without graft, aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6-2.6; SHP, aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.1) compared with cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament fixation (Manchester procedure). There was no difference in the reoperation rate or sense of a globe between SSHP with graft and Manchester procedure. Patients undergoing SSHP without graft had a higher frequency of 1-year postoperative complications compared with Manchester procedure (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6-2.6) and SHP (aOR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-3.9). Moreover, the frequency of 1-year postoperative complications was higher in SSHP with graft (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2) than in Manchester procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The Manchester procedure was associated with a low rate of recurrent POP surgery, symptomatic recurrence and low surgical morbidity compared with other surgical methods in women with uterine prolapse.

Pelvic organ prolapse following hysterectomy on benign indication: a nationwide, nulliparous cohort study

BACKGROUND

Hysterectomy is commonly performed and may increase the risk of pelvic organ prolapse. Previous studies in parous women have shown an increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery after hysterectomy. Parity is a strong risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse and may confuse the true relation between hysterectomy and pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether hysterectomy performed for benign conditions other than pelvic organ prolapse leads to an increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in a cohort of nulliparous women.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted a historical matched cohort study based on a nationwide population of nulliparous women born in 1947 to 2000 and living in Denmark during 1977 to 2018 (N=549,197). The data were obtained from the Danish Civil Registration System, the Danish National Patient Registry, the Fertility Register, and Statistics Denmark. Women who had a hysterectomy performed in 1977 to 2018 were included in the study (n=9535). For each of these women we randomly retrieved five nonhysterectomized women matched on age and calendar year to constitute the reference group (n=47,370). Cox proportional hazard regression analyses were performed to compare the risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the 2 groups of women.

RESULTS

The study included 56,905 women whom we observed for up to 42 years, entailing 809,435 person-years in risk. Overall, 9535 women who underwent a hysterectomy were matched individually with 47,370 reference women. Subsequently, a total of 29 women (30.4%) who underwent a hysterectomy and 85 reference women (17.9%) had a pelvic organ prolapse surgery performed, corresponding to incidence rates of 20.5 and 12.7 per 100,000 risk years, respectively. In addition, the risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery increased by 60% in women who underwent a hysterectomy compared with women in the reference group (crude hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.5; P=.04; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.5; P=.04). After the exclusion of women who underwent vaginal hysterectomy and their matches, the results were significantly the same (crude hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.4; P=.05). Furthermore, we found higher rates of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in women who had a subtotal hysterectomy, total hysterectomy, or vaginal and laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomies than in women in the reference group.

CONCLUSION

Hysterectomy increased the risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery for nulliparous women by 60%. Previous studies of multiparous women have similarly shown an increased risk of prolapse after hysterectomy. As the most common risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse-vaginal birth-was not included and women were >72 years of age in this study, the numbers of pelvic organ prolapse surgeries were low. Despite the low absolute risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in nulliparous women, they were important in investigating the association between hysterectomy and pelvic organ prolapse, excluding vaginal birth, which is the most common risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse. As this cohort study of nulliparous women found an increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery after hysterectomy, it is implied that the uterus per se protects against pelvic organ prolapse. As such, gynecologists should be aware of the risks associated with hysterectomy, and alternative uterus-sparing treatments should be considered when possible. Furthermore, women should be informed about the risks before being offered a hysterectomy.

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction and hypothesis

Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy offers a uterine-sparing alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, although randomised comparative data are lacking. This study was aimed at comparing the long-term efficacy of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse.

Methods

A randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse was performed, with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. The primary outcome was reoperation for apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported mesh complications, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification, Patient Global Impression of Improvement in prolapse symptoms and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms, Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) and PISQ-12 questionnaires.

Results

A total of 101 women were randomised and 62 women attended for follow-up at a mean of 100 months postoperatively (range 84–119 months). None reported a mesh-associated complication. The risk of reoperation for apical prolapse was 17.2% following vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and 6.1% following laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH; relative risk 0.34, 95% CI 0.07–1.68, p = 0.17). Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was associated with a statistically significantly higher apical suspension (POP-Q point C −5 vs −4.25, p = 0.02) and longer total vaginal length (9 cm vs 6 cm, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the change in ICIQ-VS scores between the two groups (ICIQ-VS change −22 vs −25, p = 0.59).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension have comparable reoperation rates and subjective outcomes. Potential advantages of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy include a lower risk of apical reoperation, greater apical support and increased total vaginal length.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00192-021-04932-6

Surgical Management of Symptomatic Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review objective and subjective success and complications of apical suspensions for symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EMBASE (2002-2019) were searched using multiple terms for apical POP surgeries, including comparative studies in French and English.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

From 2,665 records, we included randomized controlled trials and comparative studies of interventions with or without hysterectomy, including abdominal apical reconstruction through open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches and vaginal apical reconstructions. Repairs using transvaginal mesh, off-the-market products, procedures without apical suspension, and follow-up less than 6 months were excluded.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Relative risk (RR) was used to estimate the effect of surgical procedure on each outcome. For each outcome and comparison, a meta-analysis was conducted to pool the RRs when possible. Meta-regression and bias tests were performed when appropriate. The GRADE (Grades for Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system for quality rating and PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting were used. Sixty-two articles were included in the review (N=22,792) and 50 studies in the meta-analyses. There was heterogeneity in study quality, techniques used, and outcomes reported. Median follow-up was 1-5 years. Vaginal suspensions showed higher risk of overall and apical anatomic recurrence compared with sacrocolpopexy (RR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22-2.74 and RR 2.70, 95% CI 1.33-5.50) (moderate), whereas minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy showed less overall and posterior anatomic recurrence compared with open sacrocolpopexy (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.75 and RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.80, respectively) (low). Different vaginal approaches, and hysterectomy and suspension compared with hysteropexy had similar anatomic success. Subjective POP recurrence, reintervention for POP recurrence and complications were similar between most procedures.

CONCLUSION

Despite variations in anatomic outcomes, subjective outcomes and complications were similar for apical POP procedures at 1-5 years. Standardization of outcome reporting and comparative studies with longer follow-up are urgently needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42019133869.

Directive clinique no 413 : Traitement chirurgical du prolapsus génital apical chez les femmes

OBJECTIF

Comparer les taux de réussite et de complications des interventions de suspension apicale pour le traitement du prolapsus symptomatique de l'utérus ou du dôme vaginal.

POPULATION CIBLE

Les femmes présentant un prolapsus symptomatique de l'utérus ou du dôme vaginal qui souhaitent obtenir un traitement chirurgical.

OPTIONS

Les interventions abordées sont les méthodes reconstructives apicales par voie abdominale (colposacropexie, hystérosacropexie ou hystéropexie avec suspension aux ligaments utéro-sacrés) par chirurgie ouverte, laparoscopique ou robotisée; les méthodes reconstructives apicales par voie vaginale (suspension du dôme vaginal ou hystéropexie, sacrospinofixation, suspension aux ligaments utéro-sacrés, suspension au muscle ilio-coccygien, culdoplastie de McCall ou amputation du col [technique de Manchester]); et les interventions vaginales oblitérantes (avec ou sans utérus in situ). Les interventions individuelles ou les grandes catégories d'interventions ont été comparées : (1) reconstruction par voie vaginale versus abdominale, (2) interventions reconstructives par voie abdominale, (3) interventions reconstructives par voie vaginale, (4) reconstruction par hystérectomie avec suspension par comparaison à la reconstruction par hystéropexie et (5) options reconstructives versus oblitérantes. RéSULTATS: Le comité d'urogynécologie a sélectionné les résultats cliniques suivants : échec objectif (obtenu par des systèmes validés de quantification du prolapsus génital et défini comme un échec global objectif et un taux d'échec par compartiment); échec subjectif (réapparition de la sensation de protubérance déterminée subjectivement, avec ou sans l'utilisation d'un questionnaire validé); réopération pour un prolapsus génital récidivé; complications postopératoires de troubles mictionnels (incontinence urinaire d'effort de novo ou postopératoire; réopération d'une incontinence urinaire d'effort de novo, persistante ou récidivée; incontinence urinaire par urgenturie; et dysfonction mictionnelle); lésion des voies urinaires détectée en périopératoire (vessie ou uretère); autres complications (exposition prothétique, définie comme un treillis visible et exposé dans le vagin et une douleur pelvienne non sexuelle); et fonction sexuelle (dyspareunie de novo et score de la fonction sexuelle d'après un questionnaire validé). BéNéFICES, RISQUES ET COûTS: Cette directive clinique sera bénéfique pour les patientes qui souhaitent obtenir une correction chirurgicale du prolapsus génital apical en améliorant les conseils sur les options de traitement chirurgical et les résultats cliniques possibles. La directive sera également utile pour les fournisseurs de soins chirurgicaux en améliorant leurs connaissances sur diverses méthodes chirurgicales. Les données présentées pourraient servir à élaborer des cadres et des outils pour la prise de décision partagée. DONNéES PROBANTES: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) et Embase pour des articles publiés entre 2002 et 2019. Les termes de recherche étaient nombreux et portaient sur les interventions de correction du prolapsus génital apical, les voies d'abord et les complications. Nous avons exclu les reconstructions par treillis transvaginal et les études comparant les interventions sans suspension apicale. Nous avons inclus des essais cliniques randomisés et des études comparatives prospectives ou rétrospectives. Nous avons limité nos recherches aux articles publiés en anglais ou en français dont le texte intégral était accessible. Une revue systématique des articles avec méta-analyse a ensuite été effectuée. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Les auteures ont évalué la qualité des données probantes et la force des recommandations en utilisant lecadre méthodologique d'évaluation, de développement et d'évaluation (GRADE). Voir l'annexe A en ligne (tableau A1 pour les définitions et tableau A2 pour l'interprétation des recommandations fortes et faibles).

PROFESSIONNELS CIBLES

Gynécologues, urologues, urogynécologues et autres fournisseurs de soins de santé qui évaluent, conseillent et soignent des femmes ayant un prolapsus génital. DÉCLARATIONS SOMMAIRES: Toutes les déclarations font référence à la correction du prolapsus génital apical à court et à moyen terme (jusqu'à 5 ans), sauf indication contraire. RECOMMANDATIONS.

Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women

OBJECTIVE

To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

TARGET POPULATION

Women with symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse seeking surgical correction.

OPTIONS

Interventions included abdominal apical reconstructive repairs (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, or uterosacral hysteropexy) via open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; vaginal apical reconstructive repairs (vault suspensions or hysteropexy, sacrospinous, uterosacral, iliococcygeus, McCall's, or Manchester types); and vaginal obliterative procedures (with or without uterus in situ). Individual procedures or broad categories of procedures were compared: (1) vaginal versus abdominal routes for reconstruction, (2) abdominal procedures for reconstruction, (3) vaginal procedures for reconstruction, (4) hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy for reconstruction, and (5) reconstructive versus obliterative options.

OUTCOMES

The Urogynaecology Committee selected outcomes of interest: objective failure (obtained via validated pelvic organ prolapse [POP] quantification systems and defined as overall objective failure as well as failure rate by compartment); subjective failure (recurrence of bulge symptoms determined subjectively, with or without use of a validated questionnaire); reoperation for POP recurrence; complications of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (de novo or postoperative stress urinary incontinence; reoperation for persistent, recurrent, or de novo stress urinary incontinence; urge urinary incontinence; and voiding dysfunction); perioperatively recognized urinary tract injury (bladder or ureter); other complications (mesh exposure, defined as mesh being visible and exposed in the vagina, and non-sexual pelvic pain); and sexual function (de novo dyspareunia and sexual function score according to a validated questionnaire).

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

This guideline will benefit patients seeking surgical correction of apical POP by improving counselling on surgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various surgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making.

EVIDENCE

We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from 2002 to 2019. The search included multiple terms for apical POP surgical procedures, approaches, and complications. We excluded POP repairs using transvaginal mesh and studies that compared procedures without apical suspension. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies. We limited language of publication to English and French and accessibility to full text. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with POP.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

All statements refer to correction of apical vaginal prolapse in the short and medium term (up to 5 years), except when otherwise specified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Short-term outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy through an anterior approach

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The posterior approach to sacrospinous hysteropexy has been well studied but little is known about the anterior approach. This study assessed the efficacy and complications of an anterior approach to sacrospinous hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy with apical repair. We hypothesized that anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy has similar efficacy and fewer complications.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent native-tissue anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy (cases) with those who underwent hysterectomy with apical repair (controls). Composite success was defined as (1) leading edge of prolapse not beyond the hymen and apex not descended > 1/3 total vaginal length; (2) no vaginal bulge symptoms; (3) no prolapse retreatment. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were performed as well as a Cox regression analysis for time to failure.

RESULTS

Fifty cases and 97 controls were compared. The median follow-up time was 7.6 months. Operative time was shorter in the hysteropexy group (110.7 vs. 155.9 min, p < 0.001). The composite success was 92% for both cases and controls (p = 1.000) with no difference in time to surgical failure (p = 0.183). There were no serious intraoperative complications in the hysteropexy group and six in the control group (3 transfusions, 1 conversion to laparotomy, 1 ureteral injury, 1 cystotomy; p = 0.101). There was no difference in the number of postoperative complications (22.0% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.203).

CONCLUSIONS

For primary uterine prolapse, anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy has similar short-term efficacy compared to hysterectomy with apical repair with shorter operative time and a trend towards fewer serious complications.

Long-term mesh complications and reoperation after laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The paucity of long-term safety and efficacy data to support laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy is noteworthy given concerns about the use of polypropylene mesh in pelvic floor surgery. This study is aimed at determining the incidence of mesh-associated complications and reoperation following this procedure.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional postal questionnaire study of women who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy between 2010 and 2018. Potential participants were identified from surgical databases of five surgeons at two tertiary urogynaecology centres in the UK. The primary outcome was patient-reported mesh complication requiring removal of hysteropexy mesh. Secondary outcomes included other mesh-associated complications, reoperation rates and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) in prolapse symptoms. Descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used.

RESULTS

Of 1,766 eligible participants, 1,121 women responded (response proportion 63.5%), at a median follow-up of 46 months. The incidence of mesh complications requiring removal of hysteropexy mesh was 0.4% (4 out of 1,121). The rate of chronic pain service use was 1.8%, and newly diagnosed systemic autoimmune disorders was 5.8%. The rate of reoperation for apical prolapse was 3.7%, and for any form of pelvic organ prolapse it was 13.6%. For PGI-I, 81.4% of patients were "much better" or "very much better".

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy has a low incidence of reoperation for mesh complications and apical prolapse, and a high rate of patient-reported improvement in prolapse symptoms. With appropriate clinical governance measures, the procedure offers an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension. However, long-term comparative studies are still required.

Native tissue sacrospinous hysteropexy from an anterior approach

AIM OF THE VIDEO

The goal of urogynecologic surgeons is to pair patients with the most appropriate and effective surgery. Sacrospinous hysteropexy has become an increasingly utilized surgical option for uterovaginal prolapse repair. The primary aim of this video is to highlight the role that sacrospinous hysteropexy can have in prolapse repair and to demonstrate an anterior approach for this procedure.

METHODS

We performed a literature review to provide general information on the efficacy, risks, and comparative benefits of sacrospinous hysteropexy. Our video demonstrates the key steps in performing a sacrospinous hysteropexy procedure from an anterior approach including method of dissection, suture fixation to the sacrospinous ligament, and cervical suspension.

RESULTS

Sacrospinous hysteropexy has generally been found to be an effective option for uterovaginal prolapse repair in properly selected patients. The demonstrated approach integrates sacrospinous ligament fixation with an anterior colporrhaphy.

CONCLUSIONS

Data and experience to date on sacrospinous hysteropexy are largely based on a posterior approach for access to the sacrospinous ligament. This surgical video demonstrates an anterior approach to sacrospinous hysteropexy that is not well characterized in the literature.

Update in native tissue vaginal vault prolapse repair

The lifetime risk of women for undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is estimated to be 11-19%, and 30% of these women will require subsequent reoperation over time. Following hysterectomy, 3.6 per 1,000 person-years need surgical correction of prolapse, and in two-thirds of these cases multi-compartment prolapse is present. In the last decades, vaginally synthetic meshes were widely used in pelvic reconstructive surgery. However, after the decision of the Food and Drug Administration in 2019 to stop selling all surgical mesh devices for transvaginal prolapse repair, native tissue (NT) vaginal repair seems to regain an important role in pelvic reconstructive surgery. In the literature, various surgical techniques have been described for apical repair, but the best surgical approach is still to be proven. This paper analyzes the current evidence from recent literature on NT vaginal vault prolapse (VVP) repair, with special focus on the safety and efficacy of the various vaginal techniques.