Hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension or Uphold™ hysteropexy in women with apical prolapse: a parallel cohort study

Review of Vaginal Approaches to Apical Prolapse Repair

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review recent literature and provide up-to-date knowledge on new and important findings in vaginal approaches to apical prolapse surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Overall prolapse recurrence rates following transvaginal apical prolapse repair range from 13.7 to 70.3% in medium- to long-term follow-up, while reoperation rates for prolapse recurrence are lower, ranging from 1 to 35%. Subjective prolapse symptoms remain improved despite increasing anatomic failure rates over time. The majority of studies demonstrated improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life in over 80% of patients 2-3 years after transvaginal repair, with similar outcomes with and without uterine preservation. Contemporary studies continue to demonstrate the safety of transvaginal native tissue repair with most adverse events occurring within the first 2 years. Transvaginal apical prolapse repair is safe and effective. It is associated with long-term improvement in prolapse-related symptoms and quality of life despite increasing rates of prolapse recurrence over time. Subjective outcomes do not correlate with anatomic outcomes.

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.

Vaginal mesh hysteropexy: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Pelvic organ prolapse surgery is performed via native tissue or graft augmented repair. Graft augmentation with synthetic mesh was introduced to improve long-term surgical outcomes compared with vaginal native tissue repairs. Vaginal hysteropexy has recently become increasingly popular due to patient preference and an improved morbidity profile over hysterectomy, while maintaining comparable efficacy. As long-term outcomes remain unanswered, mesh augmentation to vaginal hysteropexy has sought to improve efficacy while minimizing complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have demonstrated superiority of vaginal mesh hysteropexy to vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue vault suspension. Short-term follow-up of vaginal mesh hysteropexy has also demonstrated lower blood loss and operative time with improved vaginal length compared with hysterectomy. Mesh exposure rates across studies were low and comparable to those of abdominally placed prolapse mesh.

SUMMARY

Vaginal mesh hysteropexy is a comparably well tolerated and effective surgical treatment option for women with uterovaginal prolapse. Although vaginal mesh kits are not commercially available, this procedure may be a viable treatment option in select patients.

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.