Long-Term Outcome of Laparoscopic Sacrohysteropexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse in Young Women

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.

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.