Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse?

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.

Abnormal Pathology Following Vaginal Hysterectomy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair

Objective: Uterine-sparing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair has shown good results, but the potential negative implications of leaving the uterus in place are yet to be fully defined. We aimed to assess the risk of unanticipated abnormal gynecological pathology at the time of reconstructive pelvic surgery. Methods: A retrospective consecutive case series including women who underwent vaginal hysterectomy for POP repair at a tertiary medical center in 2006-2020. All patients were offered a free Pap smear test at the age of 65 years as part of a national screening program. Transvaginal ultrasound was routinely performed preoperatively. Standard 3 pedicle hysterectomy was performed with/without bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). Results: The study comprised 462 women of mean age 63 ± 9.3 years without previous known malignant or premalignant pathology. Benign pathology was observed in 286 patients (61.9%). Endometrial malignancy was found in three patients (0.7%) and significant premalignant pathology in 15 patients (3.2%), including cervical intraepithelial neoplasia stage 2-3 in seven patients (1.5%) and complex hyperplasia with atypia in eight patients (1.7%). All these pathologies were found in postmenopausal women. None had preoperative clinical symptoms or endometrial thickness of ≥5 mm on preoperative ultrasound. In the 35 patients after BSO, adnexal findings were normal (77.2%) or benign (22.8%). Conclusions: Premenopausal women with uterovaginal prolapse and normal preoperative evaluation have a minimal risk of significant abnormal uterine pathology. In postmenopausal women, the risk of unanticipated malignant uterine pathology is 0.7% and 3.2% for significant premalignancy.

Effect of different surgical techniques on postoperative wound infection in patients with uterine prolapse: A meta-analysis

The assumption is that a number of controlled trials have been conducted to assess the impact of uterus retaining or hysterectomy on wound and haemorrhage, but there is no indication as to which method would be more beneficial for wound healing. This research is intended to provide a comprehensive overview of the availability of wound healing in case studies of both operative methods. From inception to October 2023, four databases were reviewed. The odds ratio (OR) and the mean difference (MD) for both groups were computed with a random effect model, as well as the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. A total of five studies were carried out in the overall design and enrolled 16 972 patients. No statistical significance was found in the rate of postoperative wound infection among the two treatments (OR,1.46; 95% CI,0.66,3.22 p = 0.35); The rates of bleeding after surgery did not differ significantly from one procedure to another (OR,1.41; 95% CI,0.91,2.17 p = 0.12); two studies demonstrated no statistical significance for the rate of incisional hernia after surgery (OR,2.58; 95% CI,0.37,18.05 p = 0.34). Our findings indicate that there is a similar risk between uterine preservation and hysterectomies for the incidence of wound infection, haemorrhage and protrusion of incision.

Impact of childbirth on pelvic floor dysfunction in women who have undergone previous pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim of the study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of pregnancy and childbirth (vaginal delivery [VD]) or cesarean section (CS) on the recurrence of pelvic floor disorders in women who had previously undergone pelvic floor reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI), to facilitate future evidence-based counseling.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, BJOG, Scopus, etc. were screened, from 1990 to date. Inclusion criteria included cohort studies, case-control studies, case series, and case reports that reported on the primary outcome measure of the review. Exclusion criteria included studies on surgical procedures whose outcomes are unlikely to be impacted by pregnancy and childbirth or are obsolete. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.

RESULTS

Seven papers on midurethral slings (MUS; 181 women in both VD and CS groups respectively) and three papers on different hysteropexy techniques (47 and 29 women in the VD and CS groups respectively), were included in the meta-analysis. No difference was seen between the two groups regarding the recurrence of SUI in women who had previously undergone MUS surgery (OR: 1.18 [0.66, 2.09]; Z = 0.56; p = 0.58) or the recurrence of POP following hysteropexy using various apical suspension procedures (OR: 1.81 [0.04, 80.65]; Z = 0.31; p = 0.76). There are insufficient data to support meta-analyses for individual MUS sub-types or hysteropexy procedures.

CONCLUSION

Current literature does not demonstrate a protective effect of CS in preventing recurrent SUI in women who had undergone MUS surgery for SUI. When hysteropexy is considered irrespective of the apical suspension procedure employed, the incidence of recurrent POP appears similar after CS and VD.

Surgical management of genital prolapse and combined gynecological pathologies in women: A meta-analysis

<b>Introduction:</b> Prolapse can be fixed using a variety of surgical procedures. The goal of the present study was to examine the current literature on various surgical techniques for treating female genital organ prolapse.<br /> <b>Methods:</b> The PubMed and Medline databases were explored for pertinent literature up through August 2022 for this meta-analysis. The terms [surgery] AND [management] AND [genital prolapse OR gynaecological diseases] AND [randomised control studies OR randomised control trials] were used as search criteria. The studies that met the inclusion criteria were considered qualified using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Cochrane handbook of “Systematic reviews of interventions” was used for risk of bias assessment.<br /> <b>Results:</b> The investigations found significant difference in the heterogeneity between the groups with a 76% I² value (p&lt;0.00001). There was little variability among the six trials that examined robotic and laparoscopic therapy of prolapse (I²=0%, p=0.94). In six investigations, the odd ratio revealed no statistically significant difference between groups (1.05; 95% CI, 0.52, 2.12). However, generally there were no appreciable differences between robotic and laparoscopic treatment of female prolapse. There was a low-risk bias among the selected studies.<br /> <b>Conclusion:</b> According to this meta-analysis study, laparoscopic surgery performed better job of managing prolapse than abdominal surgery.

Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy as treatment for uterine descent: comparison of long-term outcomes

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a frequent occurring health issue, especially concerning elderly women. The objective of this study is to examine the long-term outcomes of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) and vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) for treatment of uterine prolapse.

METHODS

A retrospective study of patients who underwent a LSH or SSHP. Validated questionnaires and an outpatient examination visit were used to investigate the effects of both surgical treatments. The primary outcome was the composite outcome of success for the apical compartment, defined as no recurrence of uterine prolapse (POP-Q measurement C ≤ 0), no subjective recurrence of POP, and/or not requiring therapy for recurrent prolapse. Secondary outcomes were peri- and postoperative data, anatomical failure, prolapse beyond hymen, subjective outcomes, and disease-specific quality of life.

RESULTS

We included 105 patients, 53 in the LSH group and 52 in the SSHP group. The overall response rate of the questionnaires was 83% (n = 87) after a mean follow-up time of 4.5 years (54.2 months; 95% CI 44.8-64.2 months) in the LSH group and 2.5 years (30.1 months; 95% CI 29.3-31.5 months) in the SSHP group. There were no clinically relevant differences between the study groups in composite outcome of success (p = 0.073), anatomical failure of the apical compartment (p = 0.711), vaginal bulge symptoms for which patients consulted professionals (p = 0.126), and patient satisfaction (p = 0.741). The operative time was longer in the LSH group (117 min; interquartile range (IQR) 110-123) compared to the SSHP group (67 minutes; IQR 60-73) (p < 0.001). The duration of hospital stay was also longer in the LSH group (4 days) than in the SSHP group (3 days) (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

LSH and SSHP seem to be equally effective after long-term follow-up in treating uterine prolapse in terms of objective and subjective recurrence.

Development and validation of the Value of Uterus instrument and visual analog scale to measure patients' valuation of their uterus

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no clear frameworks or tools to objectively or subjectively evaluate patient attitudes toward uterine preservation and how they influence the decision to proceed with hysterectomy vs uterine preservation when undergoing prolapse surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a reliable and valid instrument to measure patients' valuation of their uterus.

STUDY DESIGN

The Value of Uterus instrument was developed on the basis of existing literature and created with structured patient-reported outcome measurement development methodology. An initial 14-question instrument was administered to 152 patients, and the instrument was revised on the basis of an analysis of internal consistency. The resulting Value of Uterus instrument has 6 items and includes a visual analog scale for the question "How important is it to you to keep your uterus when you have a gynecologic condition?" To validate the instrument, we recruited 51 patients aged >45 years with uterovaginal prolapse who presented to the urogynecology department and were scheduled to undergo vaginal surgery with or without hysterectomy. Internal reliability of the instrument was measured with Cronbach alpha. For known-groups validity, Value of Uterus summary scores were compared between women who underwent hysteropexy and those who underwent hysterectomy using the t test. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess test-retest reliability with Value of Uterus administered to women twice. Lastly, a receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was conducted to identify a cutoff Value of Uterus and visual analog scale score for predicting whether a woman would undergo hysteropexy (vs hysterectomy).

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients were recruited (26 patients in the hysterectomy and 25 in the hysteropexy group), with a mean age of 64±10 years; 87.8% of patients self-identified as White. There were no differences in demographics between the groups. Cronbach's alpha was 0.94, suggesting excellent internal consistency of the items in the Value of Uterus instrument. The Value of Uterus instrument was highly correlated with the visual analog scale question, with r=0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.89; P<.001). Patients in the hysteropexy group had significantly higher Value of Uterus scores (indicating greater value placed on the uterus) than women who underwent hysterectomy (20.8 vs 12.2; P<.001). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis identified a Value of Uterus cutoff score ≥14, with good accuracy for predicting hysteropexy (area under the curve, 0.87; sensitivity, 92.0%; specificity, 68%).

CONCLUSION

Value of Uterus is a reliable and valid 6-item instrument that measures patients' valuation of the uterus and preferences for uterine preservation when undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Value of Uterus and visual analog scale were shown to reliably predict whether a patient undergoes uterine-preserving prolapse surgery. The Value of Uterus instrument and visual analog scale tool can be useful tools to ensure that the patient's preferences are included in the medical decision-making. Value of Uterus may be useful for future research in other gynecologic conditions where uterine preservation is an option.

Female sexual function after repair of uterovaginal prolapse

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of repair of uterovaginal prolapse using sacrospinous hysteropexy on female sexual function.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Urogynecology Clinic of the Suez Canal University Hospital from May 2014 to April 2019. Twenty-seven women with a diagnosis of uterovaginal prolapse and wishing to preserve their uteri were recruited. Sacrospinous ligament fixation was done. Sexual symptoms were assessed using the female sexual function index (FSFI) questionnaire just before and 6 months after the operation.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 36.5 ± 4 years. Sacrospinous hysteropexy only was performed for three women. Additional procedures included anterior colporrhaphy (12), posterior colporrhaphy (9), and perineorrhaphy (15). There was a significant improvement in pre- and postoperative patients' orgasm (3.1 ± [0.8] vs. 3.7 ± [1.1]; p value = 0.03) and satisfaction (3.4 ± [0.6] vs. 4.2 ± [0.8]; p value < 0.001) while there was worsening of pain (4.3 ± [1.5] vs. 3.2 ± [1.6]; p value = 0.017). There was insignificant improvement in the other three domains as well as total score of FSFI, with all patients having sexual dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

Sacrospinous hysteropexy was associated with significant improvement orgasm and satisfaction domains of FSFI and significant worsening of pain.

Postoperative pain and the need for intervention after sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy compared to colpopexy: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To compare postoperative pain between patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament colpopexy (SSLF) and hysteropexy (SSLH).

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing native tissue SSLF and SSLH between January 2013 and March 2020. The electronic medical record was queried for demographic and perioperative data until the postoperative visit. The primary outcome was a composite incidence of any of the following: telephone calls, urgent office visits, additional analgesic prescriptions and need for intervention for pain in the buttocks, posterior thigh or perirectal area. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of persistent pain at the postoperative visit and perioperative risk factors associated with reported pain.

RESULTS

A total of 406 patients met inclusion criteria (308 SSLF, 98 SSLH). The composite pain outcome was seen in 99 patients (24.4%; 95% CI 20.5%-28.8%), and there was no statistical difference between cohorts. Persistent pain was seen in 15.6% and 13.3% of SSLF and SSLH patients at 6 weeks (p = 0.58). Twelve patients (3.0%) underwent interventions for pain, including physical therapy (2), trigger point injections (5) and suture release (5). Compared to SSLF patients, SSLH patients were more likely to need interventions (7 [7.1%] vs. 5 [1.6%], p = 0.005) and office visits (14 [14.3%] vs. 13 [4.2%], p = 0.0005) for pain.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the overall incidence of postoperative pain between patients who underwent SSLF or SSLH. However, patients who underwent hysteropexy were more likely to need intervention and office evaluation for postoperative pain.

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.

Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension

BACKGROUND

Given that the number of surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse is expected to increase worldwide, knowledge on risk factors for prolapse recurrence is of importance for developing preventive strategies and shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVE

To identify risk factors for subjective and objective failure after either sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension over a period of 5 years after surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a secondary analysis of the 5-year follow-up of the SAVE-U trial. The SAVE-U trial was conducted in 4 Dutch hospitals. A total of 208 women with uterine prolapse stage ≥2 were randomized to sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. For the current analysis, available annual 5-year follow-up data of 207 women were analyzed. Without missing values this analysis would have included 1035 measurements in total over the 5-year follow-up. Recurrences were analyzed as "events" using generalized linear mixed models because recurrences of anatomic failure and bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms fluctuated over time. The primary outcome was the composite outcome of failure defined as prolapse beyond the hymen, bothersome bulge symptoms, repeated surgery, or pessary use for recurrent prolapse. Secondary outcome measures were bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms, overall anatomic failure (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage ≥2 in any compartment), apical compartment recurrence (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage ≥2), anterior compartment recurrence (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage ≥2), and posterior compartment recurrence (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage ≥2).

RESULTS

For the composite outcome of failure (164 events in 66 different women), statistically significant risk factors were: body mass index (odds ratio, 1.10 [per 1 kg/m²]; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.19; P=.02), smoking (odds ratio, 2.88; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-7.40; P=.03), and preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point Ba (odds ratio, 1.23 [per 1 cm]; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.50; P=.04). When analyzing each surgical outcome measure separately, body mass index and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point Ba were risk factors for overall anatomic failure (462 events in 147 women; odds ratio, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.25; P<.01 and odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.30; P=.05, respectively) and anterior compartment recurrence (385 events in 128 women; odds ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.22; P=.02 and odds ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.34; P=.02, respectively). Vaginal hysterectomy was a risk factor for posterior compartment recurrence when compared with sacrospinous hysteropexy (93 events in 40 women; odds ratio, 5.21; 95% confidence interval, 2.05-13.27; P<.01). Smoking was a risk factor for bothersome vaginal bulge symptoms (70 events in 41 women; odds ratio, 3.80; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-9.75; P=.01), and preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage 3 or 4 was significantly protective against bothersome bulge symptoms (odds ratio, 0.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.89; P=.03).

CONCLUSION

Body mass index, smoking, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point Ba were statistically significant risk factors for the composite outcome of failure (prolapse beyond the hymen, bothersome bulge symptoms, repeated surgery, or pessary use for recurrent prolapse) in the period of 5 years after surgery.

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

Hysterectomy Versus Hysteropexy at the Time of Native Tissue Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine whether a hysterectomy at the time of native tissue pelvic organ prolapse repair is cost-effective for the prevention of endometrial cancer.

METHODS

We created a decision analysis model using TreeAge Pro. We modeled prolapse recurrence after total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (TVH-USLS) versus sacrospinous ligament fixation hysteropexy (SSLF-HPXY). We modeled incidence and diagnostic evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding, including risk of endometrial pathology and diagnosis or death from endometrial cancer. Modeled costs included those associated with the index procedure, subsequent prolapse repair, endometrial biopsy, pelvic ultrasound, hysteroscopy, dilation and curettage, and treatment of endometrial cancer.

RESULTS

TVH-USLS costs US $587.61 more than SSLF-HPXY per case of prolapse. TVH-USLS prevents 1.1% of women from experiencing postmenopausal bleeding and its diagnostic workup. It prevents 0.95% of women from undergoing subsequent major surgery for the treatment of either prolapse recurrence or suspected endometrial cancer. Using our model, it costs US $2,698,677 to prevent one cancer death by performing TVH-USLS. As this is lower than the value of a statistical life, it is cost-effective to perform TVH-USLS for cancer prevention. Multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses showed that changes to input variables would not significantly change outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

TVH-USLS increased costs but reduced postmenopausal bleeding and subsequent major surgery compared with SSLF-HPXY. Accounting for these differences, TVH-USLS was a cost-effective approach for the prevention of endometrial cancer. Uterine preservation/removal at the time of prolapse repair should be based on the woman's history and treatment priorities, but cancer prevention should be one aspect of this decision.

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.

Sacrospinous ligament fixation with uterine preservation reduces the risk of anatomical recurrence in pelvic organ prolapse

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and whether uterine preservation reduces the anatomical recurrence rate.

METHODS

The medical records of 82 patients who received SSLF in a single medical center were reviewed retrospectively. Anatomical recurrence was defined as Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification stage 2 or higher in any compartment. The primary outcome was intergroup analysis for uterine preservation and concomitant hysterectomy patients. The secondary outcomes were anatomical recurrence risk factors and the incidence of adverse events. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for demographic differences between groups.

RESULTS

The anatomical recurrence rate was 19.5%, and the retreatment rate was 11.0% (mean follow-up duration: 22.9 months). Cystocele was the most common recurrent compartment (17.1%). The uterine preservation group (n = 66) was younger, had lower parity, and had fewer stage 3 to 4 cystoceles and uterine prolapses than the concomitant hysterectomy group (n = 16). Shorter operation times (99.4 minutes vs 153.7 minutes, P = .002) and lower anatomical recurrence rates (11.5% vs 45.5%, P = .039) were found in the uterine preservation group before and after PSM. Previous pelvic organ prolapse surgery (hazard ratio 3.14) and concomitant hysterectomy (hazard ratio 4.08) were identified as risk factors for anatomical recurrence. The most common adverse event was buttock pain (14.6%), which resolved spontaneously within 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

SSLF is an effective surgical method using native tissue for pelvic reconstruction. Compared with concomitant hysterectomy, SSLF with uterine preservation reduces the anatomical recurrence rate.

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.

Obstetric outcomes after uterus-sparing surgery for uterine prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Up-to-date there are no guidelines about uterus-sparing prolapse repair procedures for women desiring childbearing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate obstetrical outcomes after uterus-sparing apical prolapse repair in terms of pregnancy rate, obstetrical adverse outcomes and delivery mode according to the type of procedure. To identify potentially eligible studies, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science (up to April 15, 2020). Case reports, reviews, letters to Editor, book chapters, guidelines, Cochrane reviews, and expert opinions were excluded. Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria and were incorporated into the final assessment, which included 1518 surgical procedures. In total 151 patients got pregnant after prolapse surgical repair, for a resulting pregnancy raw rate of 9.9 %. Overall, adverse obstetric outcomes resulted low, rating 4.6 %. Manchester procedure resulted associated with the highest risk of adverse obstetrical outcomes and preterm premature rupture of membranes (p < 0.0001). After exclusion of Manchester procedure, sacrohysteropexy was found to be associated with higher risk of obstetrical adverse outcomes compared to native-tissue procedures (p = 0.04). Native-tissue surgery might represent the most cautious option for women wishing for pregnancy.

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

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim was to compare objective and subjective cure rates between Uphold™ hysteropexy (HP) and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with uterosacral suspension.

METHODS

A sample size of 49 in each arm would be required to detect a clinical difference of 20% between the groups. Owing to delayed recruitment, this originally planned randomised controlled trial was changed to a patient preference study after randomising initial 6 participants. Women with symptomatic stage ≥2 uterine descent wishing a surgical solution were included. Routine follow-up was scheduled at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and annually thereafter. Primary outcome was absence of stage ≥2 apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included a composite cure of no leading edge beyond the hymen, absence of bulge symptoms and no retreatment; patient-reported outcomes were based on quality-of-life questionnaires (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12, PGI-I, EQ5D and a health score).

RESULTS

We recruited 50 patients undergoing VH between 2011 and 2013 and 51 patients undergoing HP between 2011 and 2016. Participants were followed up for a median of 25 months (23-96). Five women from the VH (10%) and 7 from the HP (14%) group were lost to follow-up. Combined anatomical and symptomatic outcomes were available for 41 (82%) VH and 39 (76%) in the HP group. There was no difference in objective apical outcomes; the incidence of stage 2 prolapse was 0% in the VH group and 2% in HP group (p = 0.50). We found no difference in the composite cure rate (78% VH vs 85% HP, 0.45) between the groups. There was no significant difference in surgical complications (p = 0.33), assessed using Clavien-Dindo classification. There was a 2% surgery rate for mesh exposure in the HP group.

CONCLUSIONS

Uphold™ uterine suspension and VH appear to have similar objective and subjective cure at 25 months, with no significant difference in surgical complications.

Evidence-Based Review of Vaginal Native Tissue Hysteropexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse

Importance

As surgical techniques evolve in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and patient preferences are better understood, more studies are investigating uterine-sparing procedures for efficacy, safety, and potentially improved quality of life. Much of the literature reflects the use of mesh material in uterine-sparing procedures, and there is a paucity of data regarding the safety and efficacy of native tissue uterine-sparing procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Objective

To summarize existing evidence regarding objective and subjective outcomes of uterine-preserving procedures including the Manchester procedure (MP) as well as native tissue uterovaginal hysteropexy with repairs, namely, uterosacral hysteropexy (USH) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), compared with outcomes of total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH) with repairs for the management of uterovaginal prolapse.

Evidence Acquisition

A review of the literature included MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases.

Results

Few level 1 data exist comparing outcomes of native tissue hysteropexy to vaginal hysterectomy for management of uterovaginal prolapse. In general, outcomes of the MP for the management of uterovaginal prolapse revealed that compared with TVH it is associated with shorter operative times, lower estimated blood loss and risk of blood transfusion with no difference in hospital stay, and similar quality of life and sexual function outcomes. Retrospective data suggest no difference with respect to recurrent prolapse of any compartment between USH and TVH with repairs. Level 1 data reveal that SSH has been shown to have similar 1-year outcomes and safety compared with TVH with native tissue suspension. Women with stage 4 prolapse who undergo an SSH may be at higher risk of recurrence and may benefit from an alternative method of apical prolapse repair.

Conclusions and Relevance

More level 1 data are needed in order to robustly understand long-term differences in outcomes between native tissue uterine-conserving versus vaginal hysterectomy surgical approaches in women with uterovaginal prolapse.

Hysteropexy with single-incision vaginal support system associated with a modified culdoplasty for enterocele prevention

Our study assessed the safety and clinical outcomes of hysteropexy with a single-incision mesh associated with a modified culdoplasty, for the surgical management or prevention of enterocele, in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We carried out a 1-year prospective single-cohort study, including 51 women with symptomatic, multi-compartmental POP. Anatomical outcome was assessed with a POP-Q system and the subjective outcomes were assessed using ICSQ-SF and PGI-I. One-year follow-up data were available for 48 out of 51 patients. The POP-Q cure rate was 91%, 83% of patients were satisfied or very satisfied (PGI-I ≤ 2). No major complications occurred; the most common minor complications were mesh erosion (6%) and pelvic pain (8%). Lower urinary tract dysfunctions arose in 16% of the patients. Anatomical prolapse recurrence (POP-Q stage ≥2) in anterior or apical compartments occurred in four patients (8%). No case of de novo prolapse occurred in the posterior compartment. None of the patients required further surgery for recurrent prolapse. This standardised procedure provided satisfactory 'restitutio ad integrum' of the vaginal anatomy and symptom relief.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? The post-surgical evidence of de novo prolapse in untreated compartments is well-known, especially in prosthetic surgery. The insertion of polypropylene mesh causes a vigorous support, consequently the forces on the pelvic floor are transmitted to the least consolidated vaginal compartment. A lack of simultaneous repair of all the segments involved in the POP increases the risk of surgical recurrence even in those areas that did not appear to be pre-operatively affected by the uterine descensus.What the results of this study add? Our prospective study showed that hysteropexy with a single-incision vaginal support system plus a modified culdoplasty was able to prevent the enterocele and the occurrence of prolapse in the posterior compartment, by closing the Douglas pouch and restoring the connection of the rectovaginal septum with the apical support.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This study may be relevant for clinicians in selecting the technique for pelvic floor surgery, and it may be of interest for researchers investigating the reasons for de novo occurrence of posterior segment prolapse.

[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.

Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study)

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to 40% of parous women which adversely affects the quality of life. During a life time, 20% of all women will undergo an operation. In general the guidelines advise a vaginal operation in case of uterine descent: hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament plication (VH), sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) or a modified Manchester operation (MM). In the last decade, renewed interest in uterus sparing techniques has been observed. Previous studies have shown non-inferiority between SSH and VH. Whether or not SSH and MM are comparable concerning anatomical and functional outcome is still unknown. The practical application of both operations is at least in The Netherlands a known cause of practice pattern variation (PPV). To reveal any difference between both techniques the SAM-study was designed.

METHODS

The SAM-study is a randomized controlled multicentre non-inferiority study which compares SSH and MM. Women with symptomatic POP in any stage, uterine descent and POP-Quantification (POP-Q) point D at ≤ minus 1 cm are eligible. The primary outcome is the composite outcome at two years of absence of prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment, the absence of bulge symptoms and absence of reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary outcomes are hospital parameters, surgery related morbidity/complications, pain perception, further treatments for prolapse or urinary incontinence, POP-Q anatomy in all compartments, quality-of-life, sexual function, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up takes place at 6 weeks, 12 and 24 months. Additionally at 12 weeks, 6 and 9 months cost-effectiveness will be assessed. Validated questionnaires will be used and gynaecological examination will be performed. Analysis will be performed following the intention-to-treat and per protocol principle. With a non-inferiority margin of 9% and an expected loss to follow-up of 10%, 424 women will be needed to prove non-inferiority with a confidence interval of 95%.

DISCUSSION

This study will evaluate the effectiveness and costs of SSH versus MM in women with primary POP. The evidence will show whether the existing PPV is detrimental and a de-implementation process regarding one of the operations is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register (NTR 6978, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 29 January 2018. Prospectively registered.

Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review the literature on apical pelvic organ prolapse surgery with uterine preservation compared with prolapse surgeries including hysterectomy and provide evidence-based guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

The sources for our data were MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to January 2017.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We accepted randomized and nonrandomized studies of uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries compared with those involving hysterectomy.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, efficacy outcomes, and adverse events, and they were individually and collectively assessed for methodological quality. If 3 or more studies compared the same surgeries and reported the same outcome, a meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

We screened 4467 abstracts and identified 94 eligible studies, 53 comparing uterine preservation to hysterectomy in prolapse surgery. Evidence was of moderate quality overall. Compared with hysterectomy plus mesh sacrocolpopexy, uterine preservation with sacrohysteropexy reduces mesh exposure, operative time, blood loss, and surgical cost without differences in prolapse recurrence. Compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension, uterine preservation in the form of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy improves the C point and vaginal length on the pelvic organ prolapse quantification exam, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain and functioning, and hospital stay, but open abdominal sacrohysteropexy worsens bothersome urinary symptoms, operative time, and quality of life. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy (vs with hysterectomy) decreases mesh exposure, reoperation for mesh exposure, postoperative bleeding, and estimated blood loss and improves posterior pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement. Transvaginal uterosacral or sacrospinous hysteropexy or the Manchester procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue suspension both showed improved operative time and estimated blood loss and no worsening of prolapse outcomes with uterine preservation. However, there is a significant lack of data on prolapse outcomes >3 years after surgery, the role of uterine preservation in obliterative procedures, and longer-term risk of uterine pathology after uterine preservation.

CONCLUSION

Uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries improve operating time, blood loss, and risk of mesh exposure compared with similar surgical routes with concomitant hysterectomy and do not significantly change short-term prolapse outcomes. Surgeons may offer uterine preservation as an option to appropriate women who desire this choice during apical prolapse repair.

Comparison of UpholdTM Vaginal Mesh Procedure with Hysterectomy or Uterine Preservation for the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Hysterectomy is the empirical treatment for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP) without robust evidence to prove its efficacy. Uphold transvaginal mesh (TVM) system is an innovated device with smaller area, superior anterior/apical support with single incision to treat POP. The prospective cohort study aims to evaluate Uphold TVM's performance with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Inclusion criteria specify patients suffering from stage 2 or more anterior/apical prolapse without previous hysterectomy. Exclusion criteria specify those with contraindications to uterine preservation, such as leiomyomas, adenomyosis, endometrial hyperplasia, abnormal uterine bleeding, postmenopausal bleeding, cervical dysplasia, receiving tamoxifen treatment, family history of gynecology cancer, or colon cancer and incapability to be routinely followed. Thirty patients are recruited in the hysterectomy group and 66 patients in the hysteropexy group. The results demonstrate that patients with Uphold mesh only experience longer vaginal length, shorter operation duration, less blood loss and less post-operation pain. The performance in anatomical correction, lower urinary tract symptoms improvement, de novo dyspareunia, urodynamic study parameters and mesh extrusion rates are comparable with or without uterus preservation. The information is useful in pre-operation counseling, when the patient can make an educated choice whether or not to receive concomitant hysterectomy.

Sacrospinous ligament fixation for hysteropexy: does concomitant anterior and posterior fixation improve surgical outcome?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Uterine preservation in uterine prolapse is an option for young patients. We hypothesized that sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) with anchorage to both the anterior and posterior cervix (SSH-ap) would have a better outcome than SSH with anchorage to the posterior cervix only (SSH-p).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study including 75 patients who underwent SSH at Chang Gung Memorial Hospital between March 2008 and August 2013. Five were excluded due to incomplete data. Of the remaining 70 patients, 35 underwent SSH-p between March 2008 and June 2011, and 35 underwent SSH-ap between June 2010 and August 2013. The primary outcome was the objective anatomical result, and a successful outcome was considered anatomical correction (POP-Q stage 1 or less) of anterior and apical prolapse. Subjective outcome was evaluated using the POPDI-6 questionnaire, and a patient response of "No or mild abdominal organ falling out sensation" together with "No or mild heaviness" was considered to indicate a successful outcome. Anterior fornix and cervical diameter measurements were included. The secondary outcome was quality of life according to the UDI-6, IIQ-7, POPDI-6, and PISQ-12 questionnaires. The 3-year outcome was used for comparison.

RESULTS

The subjective overall cure rates were significantly different between the SSH-p and SSH-ap groups (74.3% and 94.3%, respectively; p = 0.023). However, the objective overall cure rates were not significantly different (74.3% and 82.9%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Anchorage of the anterior cervix and vaginal wall together with the usual posterior anchorage yield better subjective outcomes and apical suspension at 3 years after surgery than anchorage of the posterior cervix and vaginal wall only. The cervix position affected the subjective outcome. Concurrent trachelectomy did not affect the outcome.

Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Under Local Anesthesia in Elderly Patients at High Risk of General Anesthesia

Introduction and Hypothesis: Sacrospinous ligament fixation(SSLF) is a commonly used surgical procedure in pelvic organ prolapse due to high treatment success rates. Many intraoperative and postoperative anesthesia-related obstacles may be encountered by the elderly population. Local anesthesia alone or with intravenous sedation may provide simple, cheap, and safe anesthesia. For elderly patients at high risk for general anesthesia according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists(ASA), it is better to operate through the vaginal route under local anesthesia. To perform minimal invasive SSLF surgery, the Pelvic Floor Repair Tissue Fixing Anchor, which is a target-specific system, can be used. In this prospective observational study, evaluation was made of elderly patients who underwent SSLF under local anesthesia. Materials and Methods: The study included 11 patients evaluated as high risk for general and regional anesthesia who underwent SSLF under local anesthesia as pelvic organ prolapse surgery. All operations were performed by a single experienced surgeon using 1% lidocaine infiltration and the Pelvic Floor Repair Tissue Fixing Anchor system. Results: The mean age of the patients was 69.6 years. Stage IV prolapse was determined in 7 (63.6%) patients, 4 (36.3%) had a history of hysterectomy, 5 (45.4%) were classified as ASA 3, and 6 (54.6%) as ASA 4. No complications occurred and patients were followed up for 24 months. In two patients, recurrence of POP was observed at postoperative 8 and 10 months, respectively. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrated the surgical and anesthetic safety of SSLF under local anesthesia for pelvic organ prolapse in elderly patients.

Vaginal hysterectomy with apical fixation and anterior vaginal wall repair for prolapse: surgical technique and medium-term results

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Stabilization of the vaginal apex (level 1) is an important component of operations to correct pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We report functional and anatomical results and patient-reported outcomes of our technique of vaginal vault fixation at the time of vaginal hysterectomy.

METHODS

One hundred and nine patients-mean 69 years, range 50.4-83.8; body mass index (BMI) 26.3, range 17.7-39.5-with symptomatic stage 2-3 uterine prolapse combined with stage 3-4 cystocele underwent vaginal hysterectomy with anterior vaginal wall repair; the apex was formed with high closure of the peritoneum and incorporation of the uterosacral and round ligaments. Only absorbable sutures were used. Follow-up included clinical examination with Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q) scoring, introital ultrasonography, quality of life (QoL) Likert scale, and the German Pelvic Floor Questionnaire.

RESULTS

Seventy patients (64%) were available for a follow-up after a mean of 2.8 years (range, 1.6-4.2). At follow-up, point C was stage 0 in 55 (78.6%) women and stage 1 in 15 (21.4%). The anterior vaginal wall was stage 0 or 1 in 35 (50%), stage 2 (no cystocele beyond the hymen) in 34 (49%), and stage 3 in 1 (1.4%). Vaginal length (VL) was 9 cm. Four women (4%) were reoperated for prolapse: two for recurrent anterior compartment prolapse and two for de novo rectocele. Postvoid residuals >150 ml were seen in 21(30%) patients preoperatively and resolved postoperatively in 20. Urgency occurred in nine (13%), stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in ten (14%), and nocturia in 19 (27%). No patient had discomfort at the vaginal vault and 62 patients (87%) reported improved QoL, which did not correlate with anatomical results. Cystocele ≥ 2° at follow-up was associated with BMI >25 (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Our surgical technique without permanent material offers good apical support and functional and subjective results. Anatomical improvement was achieved in all cases of cystocele repair. Recurrent cystoceles are often asymptomatic.

Does the uterus need to be removed to correct uterovaginal prolapse?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Owing to growing interest in uterine preservation, this evidence-based review compares hysteropexy with hysterectomy during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse.

RECENT FINDINGS

LeFort colpocleisis is preferred over vaginal hysterectomy and total colpocleisis. The majority of studies show no differences in outcomes comparing sacrospinous hysteropexy with vaginal hysterectomy native tissue prolapse repair except for a single randomized controlled trial showing increased apical recurrences with advanced prolapse. Results comparing uterosacral hysteropexy and sacral hysteropexy with hysterectomy native tissue repairs are inconclusive. Potentially better outcomes are reported when laparoscopic hysterectomy (total or supracervical) is performed with sacral colpopexy compared with laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy, but mesh and morcellation risks should be considered. Data comparing vaginal mesh hysteropexy with currently available products with hysterectomy prolapse repairs are lacking but a high-quality study is underway.

SUMMARY

High satisfaction and low reoperation rates can be accomplished using a variety of hysteropexy techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of uterine conservation must be considered when planning uterovaginal prolapse surgery. The type of hysteropexy and possible graft configuration may impact reoperation rates for recurrent prolapse. Vaginal mesh risks must be considered and laparoscopic mesh risks must be balanced with potential difficulty of future hysterectomy if needed.

A new operation technique for uterine prolapse: Vaginally-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy

Objective:

To describe the new surgical technique and report the safety and feasibility of vaginally-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (VALSH).

Materials and Methods:

Thirty-three women with stage 3 or more uterine prolapse underwent VALSH operation. Patients were followed up for 12 months for mesh-related complications and improvements of symptoms. The operation had three sections; 1^st laparoscopic, 2^nd vaginal, 3^rd laparoscopic.

Results:

The mean age, gravidity, and parity of the study population were 46.5 years (range, 25-68 years), 4.3 (1-9), and 2.9 (1-6), respectively. The mean duration of operation was 59.5 min (range, 20-120 min). There were significant differences between the pre- and post-operative values of pelvic organ prolapse quantification parameters, which were favorable in the latter evaluation (p<0.001); total vaginal length was preserved after surgery (p>0.05).

Conclusion:

VALSH is a safe and minimally-invasive procedure in uterovaginal prolapse, with favorable anatomic and functional outcomes at 12 months post-operatively.

Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Sacrospinous hysteropexy is a uterine-preserving procedure for treatment of apical prolapse. We present a literature review evaluating the sacrospinous hysteropexy procedure and its current place in the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. Additionally, to assess the efficacy of the procedure, we performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing sacrospinous hysteropexy to vaginal hysterectomy and repair in terms of anatomical outcomes, complications, and repeat surgery.

METHODS

Major literature databases including MEDLINE (1946 to 2 April 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3), and Embase (1947 to 2 April 2016) were searched for relevant studies. We used Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager software to perform meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies and observational studies.

RESULTS

Vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy was first performed in 1989 and is similar in technique to sacrospinous colpopexy. Two randomized controlled trials and four cohort studies (n = 651) were included in the meta-analysis. Apical failure rates after sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy were not significantly different, although the trend favored vaginal hysterectomy [odds ratio (OR) 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76-5.68]. Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were not significantly different between the two groups (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.41-2.37). The most significant disadvantage of uterine-preservation prolapse surgery when compared with hysterectomy is the lack of prevention and diagnosis of uterine malignancy.

CONCLUSION

Sacrospinous hysteropexy is a safe and effective procedure for pelvic organ prolapse and has comparable outcomes to vaginal hysterectomy with repair.

Role of concurrent vaginal hysterectomy in the outcomes of mesh-based vaginal pelvic organ prolapse surgery

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Hysterectomy is often performed at the time of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery; yet, there is insufficient evidence regarding the specific effect of hysterectomy on outcomes. We sought to determine the outcomes and associated short-term complications of mesh-based POP surgery with and without concurrent hysterectomy.

METHODS

We utilized the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperation System (SPARCS) database to identify patients under 55 years of age undergoing surgeries for POP with mesh between 2009 and 2014. Patients who had a hysterectomy at the time of mesh-based POP surgery were compared with those who underwent mesh-based POP surgery without hysterectomy. Outcome measures of the patient groups before and after propensity score matching were compared. We assessed the difference Chi-squared tests and log-rank tests in the entire cohort and Mantel-Haenszel stratified Chi-squared tests and Prentice-Wilcoxon tests in the matched cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1,601 women underwent mesh-based POP surgery. 921 patients underwent concurrent hysterectomy, whereas 680 had mesh-based uterine-preserving POP surgery. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in reintervention rates between groups for up to 3 years. Concurrent hysterectomy with mesh-based POP repair was consistently associated with longer hospitalization (20.0% vs 12.8% stayed longer than 2 days) and higher charges (median charges were $22,689 vs $19,273).

CONCLUSIONS

Concurrent hysterectomy during mesh-based POP surgery in patients under 55 years led to more expensive charges and a longer stay compared with uterine-preserving mesh surgery. There was no difference in reintervention rates between groups for up to 3 years.

Does prolapse equal hysterectomy? The role of uterine conservation in women with uterovaginal prolapse

Hysterectomy has historically been a mainstay in the surgical treatment of uterovaginal prolapse, even in cases in which the removal of the uterus is not indicated. However, uterine-sparing procedures have a long history and are now becoming more popular. Whereas research on these operations is underway, hysteropexy for the treatment of prolapse is not as well studied as hysterectomy-based repairs. Compared with hysterectomy and prolapse repair, hysteropexy is associated with a shorter operative time, less blood loss, and a faster return to work. Other advantages include maintenance of fertility, natural timing of menopause, and patient preference. Disadvantages include the lack of long-term prolapse repair outcomes and the need to continue surveillance for gynecological cancers. Although the rate of unanticipated abnormal pathology in this population is low, women who have uterine abnormalities or postmenopausal bleeding are not good candidates for uterine-sparing procedures. The most studied approaches to hysteropexy are the vaginal sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy and the abdominal sacrohysteropexy, which have similar objective and subjective prolapse outcomes compared with hysterectomy and apical suspension. Pregnancy and delivery have been documented after vaginal and abdominal hysteropexy approaches, although very little is known about outcomes following parturition. Uterine-sparing procedures require more research but remain an acceptable option for most patients with uterovaginal prolapse after a balanced and unbiased discussion reviewing the advantages and disadvantages of this approach.

Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether uterus preserving vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy is non-inferior to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse.

DESIGN

Multicentre randomised controlled non-blinded non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

4 non-university teaching hospitals, the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

208 healthy women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher requiring surgery and no history of pelvic floor surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Treatment with sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments. The predefined non-inferiority margin was an increase in surgical failure rate of 7%.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was recurrent prolapse stage 2 or higher of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) evaluated by the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse at 12 months' follow-up. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical recurrences, including recurrent anterior compartment (bladder) and/or posterior compartment (bowel) prolapse, functional outcome, complications, hospital stay, postoperative recovery, and sexual functioning.

RESULTS

Sacrospinous hysteropexy was non-inferior for anatomical recurrence of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery (n=0, 0%) compared with vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments (n=4, 4.0%, difference -3.9%, 95% confidence interval for difference -8.6% to 0.7%). At 12 months, overall anatomical recurrences, functional outcome, quality of life, complications, hospital stay, measures on postoperative recovery, and sexual functioning did not differ between the two groups. Five serious adverse events were reported during hospital stay. None was considered to be related to the type of surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Uterus preservation by sacrospinous hysteropexy was non-inferior to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments for surgical failure of the apical compartment at 12 months' follow-up.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

trialregister.nl NTR1866.