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

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 Sacrohysteropexy for the Management of Uterovaginal Prolapse: a Pilot, Single-Center Experience from Saudi Arabia

Background

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is an emerging uterine-preserving strategy for management of uterovaginal prolapse (UVP). The literature on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of UVP is very scarce from Saudi Arabia. This research examined the feasibility, clinical utility, and safety of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in a Saudi setting.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted, including all patients who met the inclusion criteria. The laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy technique was adapted with modifications from the "Oxford hysteropexy". The primary endpoint was overall success, defined as anatomical success in all vaginal compartments (UVP grade 0 or 1 postoperatively). The secondary endpoint was the mean change in point C. Descriptive data were summarized with numbers and percentages, while numerical data used means ± standard deviations. Fisher's exact and Student's t tests were used for univariate analyses. Significant surgical outcome predictors were identified via logistic regression, with p <0.05 considered statistically significant.

Results

Overall, 21 patients met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent indication for laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was UVP without anterior or posterior wall prolapse (n = 15, 71.4%), whereas the most frequent grade of UVP was grade III (n = 13, 61.9%). One patient (4.8%) required switch to laparotomy due to severe adhesions. No perioperative complications were recorded. The mean change in point C and hospital stay were 5.8 ± 2.1 (range: 0-8) and 1.4 ± 0.6 days (range: 1-3), respectively. Surgical success was achieved in 18 patients (85.7%). Only three patients experienced recurrences (one, two, and six months postoperatively). The mean change in point C was significantly higher in successful cases contrasted with the failed cases (6.5 versus 1.3).

Conclusion

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for management of uterovaginal prolapse revealed technical feasibility, safety, and beneficial utility of the procedure. Further large-sized and multicentric investigations are important to gather additional pertinent information on laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy.

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.

Minimally Invasive Sacrohysteropexy Versus Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Prospective Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether minimally invasive Sacrohysteropexy (SH) is non-inferior to vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) in women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, non-inferiority study.

SETTING

Tertiary university-based hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 146 patients with uterovaginal prolapse between July 2016 and August 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either laparoscopic or robotic SH surgery or VH with USLS surgery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was prolapse recurrence at 1 year after surgery, defined as prolapse ≥ stage 2 evaluated using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system, bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms, or retreatment for prolapse. The secondary outcomes included operation time, estimated blood loss, hospital stay, operation-related complications, pain intensity, quality of life, and activities of daily living. Of 146 women who underwent randomization, 73 in the SH group and 73 in the VH with USLS group were analyzed. SH was non-inferior for recurrence compared with VH with USLS (16.4% vs 15.8%, 95% confidence interval: -13.0% to 14.2%). Operating duration and transvaginal length were significantly longer in the SH group, while there were no significant differences in the estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, or postoperative complication rates. Although perioperative pain intensity was greater from 1 week to 1 month in the SH group, the quality of life and activities of daily living did not differ between the groups throughout postoperative year 1.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic or robotic SH was non-inferior to VH with USLS for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse at the 1-year follow-up.

Determinants of Dissatisfaction After Laparoscopic Cure of Vaginal and/or Rectal Prolapse using Mesh: a Comprehensive Retrospective Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The primary objective is to identify determinants of dissatisfaction after surgical treatment of vaginal prolapse ± rectal prolapse, using laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or sacrocolpopexy (LSC) ± ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR). The secondary objective is the evaluation of complications and objective/subjective recurrence rates.

METHODS

The study performed was a single-surgeon retrospective review of prospectively collected data. LSH/LSC ± VMR were performed between July 2005 and September 2022. Primary investigated outcome was patients' satisfaction, assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) score and the bother visual analog scale (VAS) obtained postoperatively (at a 1-month interval and on a 6-month/yearly basis thereafter). We looked for a correlation between the level of satisfaction (as reflected by the VAS) and potential determinants.

RESULTS

There were 355 patients with a mean age of 62 ±12 years. Nearly all the patients (94.3%) had a stage 3 or 4 prolapse according to the POP-Q classification. The mean postoperative bother VAS was 1.8, with only 12.7% of patients reporting a bother VAS score ≥ 3/10, indicating a dissatisfaction. PGI-I showed improvement in the vast majority of patients (96.4% scoring 1 to 3). Patients with anal incontinence preoperatively scored higher on the bother VAS postoperatively (r=0.175, p < 0.05). The use of a posterior arm mesh (for posterior vaginal prolapse) correlated with better satisfaction overall (r= -0.178, p = 0.001), whereas the performance of VMR was associated with a bothering sensation (r = 0.232, p < 0.001). A regression analysis confirmed the impact of posterior mesh and VMR on satisfaction levels, with odds of dissatisfaction being 2.18 higher when VMR was combined with LSH/LSC.

CONCLUSIONS

Posterior mesh use improves patient satisfaction when the posterior compartment is affected. In patients with concomitant vaginal and rectal prolapse, combining VMR with anterior LSC/LSH appears to negatively impact patients' satisfaction. Preoperative anal incontinence was demonstrated to be a risk factor for postoperative dissatisfaction.

Midterm comparison of laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrocolpopexy in the treatment of moderate to severe apical prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to retrospectively analyze the midterm efficacy of laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension (HUS) and sacrocolpopexy (SC) in the treatment of moderate to severe apical prolapse.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparoscopic HUS and SC in our center from 2013 to 2019 with follow-ups were included, consisting of laparoscopic HUS (group A, n=72) or SC (mesh added, group B, n=54). The general data of patients, pelvic organ prolapse quantitative examination (POP-Q) score, Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory short form 20 score (PFDI-20) before and after operation, perioperative conditions, Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), and postoperative complications were collected for statistical analysis and comparison between groups.

RESULTS

There was no statistical difference in preoperative data between groups. The median follow-up time was 48 months. The objective recurrence rate of group A was higher than that of group B, without statistical significance. One patient in group B had a second operation owing to recurrence. The exposure rate of mesh in group B was 3.70%. There was no significant difference in deviation of POP-Q and PFDI-20 pre- and post-operation. The proportion of new defecation abnormalities in group A was lower. The total hospitalization expenses and surgical consumables in group B were significantly higher than those in group A.

CONCLUSIONS

The midterm curative effect of laparoscopic HUS is similar to that of SC in the treatment of moderate to severe apical prolapse. The former has the advantages of less intraoperative blood loss, shorter postoperative hospital stay, lower cost, fewer new defecation abnormalities, and there were no complications related to mesh.

Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse

BACKGROUND

Apical vaginal prolapse is the descent of the uterus or vaginal vault (post-hysterectomy). Various surgical treatments are available, but there are no guidelines to recommend which is the best.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of any surgical intervention compared to another intervention for the management of apical vaginal prolapse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group's Specialised Register of controlled trials, which contains trials identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP and handsearching of journals and conference proceedings and ClinicalTrials.gov (searched 14 March 2022).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were awareness of prolapse, repeat surgery and recurrent prolapse (any site).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 59 RCTs (6705 women) comparing surgical procedures for apical vaginal prolapse. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to moderate. Limitations included imprecision, poor methodology, and inconsistency. Vaginal procedures compared to sacral colpopexy for vault prolapse (seven RCTs, n=613; six months to f four-year review) Awareness of prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (risk ratio (RR) 2.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 4.21, 4 RCTs, n = 346, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 8% of women are aware of prolapse after sacral colpopexy, 18% (10% to 32%) are likely to be aware after vaginal procedures. Surgery for recurrent prolapse was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 2.33, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.04; 6 RCTs, n = 497, I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The confidence interval suggests that if 6% of women require repeat prolapse surgery after sacral colpopexy, 14% (8% to 25%) are likely to require it after vaginal procedures. Prolapse on examination is probably more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.65; 5 RCTs, n = 422; I2 = 24%, moderate-certainty evidence). If 18% of women have recurrent prolapse after sacral colpopexy, between 23% and 47% are likely to do so after vaginal procedures. Other outcomes: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) was more common after vaginal procedures (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.94; 3 RCTs, n = 263; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of vaginal procedures on dyspareunia was uncertain (RR 3.44, 95% CI 0.61 to 19.53; 3 RCTs, n = 106, I2 = 65%, low-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (six RCTS, 554 women, one to seven year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.01 95% CI 0.10 to 9.98; 2 RCTs, n = 200, very low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.54; 5 RCTs, n = 403; I2 = 9%, low-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- there was little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.11; 2 RCTs n = 230; I2 = 9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysteropexy compared to sacral hysteropexy/cervicopexy (two RCTs, n = 388, 1-four-year review) Awareness of prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.55 95% CI 0.21 to 1.44; 1 RCT n = 257, low-certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - No difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.52 to 3.44; 2 RCTs, n = 345; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 2 RCTs n =367; I2 =9%, moderate-certainty evidence). Vaginal hysterectomy compared to vaginal hysteropexy (four RCTs, n = 620, 6 months to five-year review) Awareness of prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.0 95% CI 0.44 to 2.24; 2 RCTs, n = 365, I2 = 0% moderate-quality certainty evidence). Surgery for recurrent prolapse - There may be little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.60; 3 RCTs, n = 443; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). Prolapse on examination- There were little or no difference between the groups for this outcome (RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.61; 2 RCTs n =361; I2 =74%, low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes: Total vaginal length (TVL) was shorter after vaginal hysterectomy (mean difference (MD) 0.89cm 95% CI 0.49 to 1.28cm shorter; 3 RCTs, n=413, low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference between the groups in terms of operating time, dyspareunia and stress urinary incontinence. Other analyses There were no differences identified for any of our primary review outcomes between different types of vaginal native tissue repair (4 RCTs), comparisons of graft materials for vaginal support (3 RCTs), pectopexy versus other apical suspensions (5 RCTs), continuous versus interrupted sutures at sacral colpopexy (2 RCTs), absorbable versus permanent sutures at apical suspensions (5 RCTs) or different routes of sacral colpopexy. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy is associated with shorter admission time than open approach (3 RCTs) and quicker operating time than robotic approach (3 RCTs). Transvaginal mesh does not confer any advantage over native tissue repair, however is associated with a 17.5% rate of mesh exposure (7 RCTs).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sacral colpopexy is associated with lower risk of awareness of prolapse, recurrent prolapse on examination, repeat surgery for prolapse, and postoperative SUI than a variety of vaginal interventions. The limited evidence does not support the use of transvaginal mesh compared to native tissue repair for apical vaginal prolapse. There were no differences in primary outcomes for different routes of sacral colpopexy. However, the laparoscopic approach is associated with a shorter operating time than robotic approach, and shorter admission than open approach. There were no significant differences between vaginal hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse nor between vaginal hysteropexy and abdominal hysteropexy/cervicopexy. There were no differences detected between absorbable and non absorbable sutures however, the certainty of evidence for mesh exposure and dyspareunia was low.

A systematic review of the surgical management of apical pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

This systematic review (PROSPERO:CRD42022275789) is aimed at comparing qualitatively the success, recurrence, and complication rates of sacrocolpopexy with concomitant hysterectomy, hysteropexy, sacrospinous fixation (SSF) with and without vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and uterosacral fixation (USF) with and without VH.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies published from 2011, on women with apical pelvic organ prolapse requiring surgical interventions. Risk of bias was assessed via the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tool. The primary outcomes are the success and recurrence rate of each technique, for ≥12 months' follow-up. Findings were summarised qualitatively.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included. Overall significant findings for a high success and low recurrence rate are summarised as: minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) is superior to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC); sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) is superior to USF + VH, which is superior to uterosacral hysteropexy and mesh hysteropexy (MHP). Significant findings related to complications include: MISC recorded a lower overall complication rate than ASC except in mesh exposure; USF + VH tends to perform better than SSHP and SSF, with SSHP performing better than MHP in faecal incontinence and overactive bladder rates.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence to conclude that hysterectomy is superior to uterine-sparing approaches. MISC should be considered over ASC given similar efficacy and reduced complications. Superiority of MHP is unproven against native tissue hysteropexy. Further studies under standardised settings are required for direct comparisons between the surgical management methods.

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.

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted suture versus mesh hysteropexy: a retrospective comparison

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Our study was aimed at comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture-based hysteropexy (SutureH) versus sacral hysteropexy using mesh (MeshH) for bothersome uterine prolapse. Our hypothesis is that MeshH is more successful and provides better uterine support than SutureH.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of 228 consecutive women who underwent re-suspension of the uterus using uterosacral ligaments (SutureH n=97) or a "U-shaped" mesh from the sacral promontory (MeshH, n=132). Surgery was performed by laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy. Subjects were assessed at baseline, 1 year, and beyond 1 year. The null hypothesis, that SutureH and MeshH have similar success, was based on a composite outcome ("composite success"), and that they provide the same level of uterine support, was based on POP-Q point C at 1 year. "Composite success" was defined as: POP-Q point C above the hymen; absence of a vaginal bulge; no repeat uterine prolapse surgery or pessary placement. Other outcomes included improvement in symptomology using Patient Global Impression of Improvement, POP-Q point C change and complications.

RESULTS

Follow-up data were available for 191 out of 228 women. "Composite success" was not significantly different between MeshH and SutureH groups (81.7% vs 84.5%, p=0.616). MeshH provided better elevation of the uterus than SutureH (point C change: -7.38cm vs -6.99cm; p<0.001). Similar symptom improvement and low complications occurred in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture hysteropexy and mesh sacral hysteropexy provide women with minimally invasive, durable surgical options for uterine preservation. "Composite success" was similar in the two groups, but MeshH provided better uterine support than SutureH. However, SutureH gives women an effective mesh-free option.

The Effect of Age on Surgical Outcomes Following Uterine Preserving Surgery for Treatment of Apical Prolapse

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of age on outcomes after uterine-preserving surgical treatment for apical prolapse.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery unit at a tertiary, university-affiliated teaching medical center.

PATIENTS

Women who underwent surgical management of apical prolapse with uterine preservation between 2010 and 2020. Excluded were women who had ≤1 month of follow-up and those for whom medical records were substantially incomplete.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Included in the study were 140 women who underwent apical prolapse repair with uterine preservation and who met the inclusion criteria. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: (1) women aged 65 years and older (≥65 group) and (2) women younger than 65 years of age (<65 group). Pre-, intra-, and postoperative data were compared between the groups. A total of 103 women (73.6%) were in the <65 group and 37 women (26.4%) in the ≥65 group. Mean age for the entire cohort was 58 ± 9.8 years, body mass index 25.9 ± 4.8 kg/m2, and duration of follow-up was 25.9 ± 21.0 months. Women in the ≥65 group had more comorbidities, were less sexually active, and were less likely to have a midurethral sling performed during their surgery. Clinical and anatomical success rates were somewhat higher in the ≥65 group; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance (97.3% vs 85.4%, p = .069 and 89.2% vs 81.2%, p = .264, respectively). Composite outcome success was higher in the ≥65 group (89.2% vs 72.5%, p = .039). Patient satisfaction recorded using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire was high for both groups. A multivariable logistic regression analysis for the dependent parameter of composite outcome success was performed, during which none of the parameters investigated reached statistical significance. Subgroup analysis was performed including only women who were postmenopausal. This was done to address the possible confounding effect that menopausal status may have had on our results. No differences were found between the groups with regard to clinical, anatomical, and composite outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Uterine-preserving surgery is a safe and effective surgical treatment for women aged ≥65 years.