The effect of uterine volume on surgical outcomes following uterine preserving apical prolapse repair

OBJECTIVE

In recent years uterine preservation has become a popular option in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse repair. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of uterine volume on outcomes following uterine preserving surgical treatment for apical prolapse.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective comparative study at a tertiary university hospital. Included were women who had uterine preserving surgical treatment for apical prolapse. The cohort was divided into two groups: 1) Patients with a uterine volume ≥ 35 cm³ (large uterus group); 2) Patients with uterine volume < 35 cm³ (small uterus group). Pre-, intra-, and post-operative data were compared between groups. Our primary outcome was composite outcome success including clinical and anatomical success and no need for reoperation. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, anatomical success, and patient satisfaction evaluated using the PGI-I questionnaire.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included in the final analysis. The large uterus group (≥35 cm³) consisted of 37 patients as opposed to 47 in the small uterus group (<35 cm³). Clinical (91.9 % vs 87.1 %, p = 0.725) and anatomical success (84.8 % vs 90.9 %, p = 0.508) were high and did not differ between groups. Composite outcome success was 76.1 % in the small uterus group compared to 87.9 % in the large uterus group, but this difference was not statistically significant. Post-operative points Ba, C and Bp were similar between groups. No difference was found in patient satisfaction measured using the PGI-I questionnaire.

CONCLUSION

Women undergoing uterine preserving apical prolapse repair with uterine volume ≥ 35 cm³ have comparable surgical outcomes to patients with a smaller uterus.

Who Places High Value on the Uterus? A Cross-sectional Survey Study Evaluating Predictors for Uterine Preservation

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine predictors for placing high value on the uterus in patients who no longer desire fertility. The secondary objective was to identify reasons for placing high value on the uterus.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey study.

SETTING

Three hospitals within a large healthcare system in the United States.

PATIENTS

New patients ≥45 years old seeking care for benign gynecologic conditions, including abnormal uterine bleeding, uterine myomas, pelvic organ prolapse, endometriosis, or pelvic pain.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was the summative score of the validated Value of Uterus (VALUS) instrument for measuring value placed on the uterus and the validated visual analog scale with the question "how important is it to you to keep your uterus when you have a gynecologic condition?" A total of 163 surveys were returned for analysis (79.2%). Using the VALUS cutoff, 64 patients (45.7%) were considered to have low value for their uterus (VALUS score <14), whereas 76 patients (54.3%) were considered to have high value for their uterus (VALUS score ≥14). The adjusted odds of placing high value for the uterus was 5.06 times higher among those who wanted to be sexually active in the future than those who do not desire to be sexually active (95% confidence interval, 1.55-16.52, p = .01). Patients who are sexually active have 3.94 higher adjusted odds of placing high value on the uterus than those who are not sexually active and do not desire to be (95% confidence interval, 1.36-11.43; p = .01). Race, religion, and personal history of cancer were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Patients who highly value the uterus were highly motivated by the desire to be sexually active. Nonwhite race, religion, and personal history of cancer were not predictors for placing high value on uterine preservation.

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.

How and on whom to perform uterine-preserving surgery for uterine prolapse

The demand for uterine preservation in pelvic reconstructive surgery for uterovaginal prolapse is steadily increasing, and several procedures have been introduced, such as sacrospinous hysteropexy, uterosacral hysteropexy, sacrohysteropexy, and hysteropectopexy. However, the benefits and risks of uterine-preserving surgeries are not well understood. This review discusses the current evidence surrounding uterine-preserving surgery for uterovaginal prolapse repair. This may help surgeons and patients have a balanced discussion on how and on whom to perform uterine-preserving surgery.

Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several authors have recently compared the outcomes and complications of surgical procedures that preserve or remove the uterus in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following the publication of several high quality randomized control trials on this topic we performed a new systematic review and meta analysis of this data.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, EBSCO host, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled and cohort trials of uterine sparing prolapse repair (hysteropexy) versus hysterectomy with suspension. A total of 1285 patients from 14 studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Uterine sparing procedures (hysteropexy) were comparable to hysterectomy with suspension for recurrence rates (RR = 0.908, 95% CI [0.385, 2.143]), reoperation rates (RR = 1.517, 95% CI [0.802, 2.868]), length of hospital stay, (SMD =  - 0.159 days, 95% CI [-0.375, 0.057]), voiding dysfunction (RR = 1.089, 95% CI [0.695, 1.706]), and intraoperative blood loss (SMD =  - 0.339, 95% CI [-0.631, 0.047]). However, hysteropexy had shorter operative time than hysterectomy with suspension (SMD =  - 1.191 h, 95% CI [-1.836, -0.545]), and fewer visceral injuries (RR = 0.421, 95% CI [0.244, 0.725]).

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in the outcomes or major complications of uterine preserving surgical procedures versus those which include hysterectomy in the treatment of POP. Hysteropexy procedures may be associated with a shorter operative time and fewer visceral injuries. This is consistent with older analyses.

Practice pattern variation: treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in The Netherlands

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Great variety in clinical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has been described over the last years. Practice pattern variation (PPV) reflects differences in care that cannot be explained by the underlying condition. We aim to explore whether PPV in management of POP in The Netherlands has changed between 2011 and 2017.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter cohort study, using prospective routinely collected benchmark data from LOGEX, a healthcare analytics company (Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Data of patients with a diagnosis POP from 50 hospitals (16 teaching and 34 non-teaching hospitals) were collected for the years 2011 and 2017. All treatments were categorized into three groups: conservative treatment, uterus-preserving or uterus-removing surgery. Using meta-analysis, we evaluated whether the proportions of conducted treatments changed over time and estimated the between-center variation (Cochran's Q), reflecting the PPV in 2011 and 2017. This variation was analyzed using F-tests.

RESULTS

Compared to 2011, referral for POP in 2017 decreased by 16.2% (-4505 patients), and the percentage of hysterectomies decreased by 33.6% (p < 0.0001). The PPV of POP surgery decreased significantly by 47.2% (p = 0.0137) and of hysterectomies by 41.5% (p = 0.0316).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a decline in PPV for POP surgery between 2011 and 2017. Furthermore, the number of surgical interventions decreased, which was mostly due to a decline of hysterectomies. This indicates a shift toward more conservative therapy and uterus preservation. A further reduction of PPV would be beneficial for the quality of health care.

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.

Gynecologists' perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The modified Manchester (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) are the most common uterus-preserving surgical procedures for uterine descent. Little is known about gynecologists' preferences regarding the two interventions. The study's aim was to identify which factors influence Dutch (uro)gynecologists when choosing one of these techniques.

METHODS

This qualitative study consists of ten semi-structured interviews with Dutch (uro)gynecologists using predetermined, open explorative questions, based on a structured topic list. An inductive content analysis was performed using Atlas.ti.

RESULTS

For SSH, the majority (6/10 gynecologists) reported the more dorsal change of direction of the vaginal axis as a disadvantage and expected more cystocele recurrences (7/10). The most reported disadvantage of MM was the risk of cervical stenosis (7/10). Four gynecologists found MM not to be appropriate for patients with higher stage uterine prolapse. The quality of the uterosacral ligaments was related to the chance of recurrence according to five gynecologists. Patient counseling was biased toward one of the uterus-preserving operations (7/10). Four gynecologists stated they make the final decision while two let patient-preference lead the final decision.

CONCLUSIONS

Preference for one of the uterus-preserving interventions is mainly based on the gynecologist's own experience and background. The lack of information regarding these two uterus-preserving procedures hampers evidence-based decision making, which explains the practice pattern variation. In conclusion, further research is needed to improve evidence-based counseling and shared decision making regarding the choice of procedure.

Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension versus vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system: clinical outcome and patient satisfaction

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The objective was to compare clinical and anatomical outcomes between laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (LUSLS) and vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system for the treatment of apical prolapse.

METHODS

We performed a comparative, retrospective cohort study. All women who underwent either vaginal colposuspension with the Uphold Lite™ System or LUSLS for treatment of apical prolapse between 2010 and 2019 were included. The groups were compared with regard to demographic, pre-operative, intra-operative, and post-operative data. Outcome measures included clinical and anatomical cure, as well as a composite outcome. The PGI-I questionnaire was used to determine patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

One-hundred and nineteen women met the inclusion criteria, including 70 women who underwent LUSLS and 49 women who underwent vaginal colposuspension with the Uphold Lite™ mesh system. At a mean follow-up of 31.7 (SD = 18.1) months, the clinical cure rate was high for both groups, reaching 98.6% in the LUSLS group compared with 89.8% in the Uphold group (NS). Anatomical cure rate was 83.6% in the LUSLS group compared with 69.7% for the Uphold group (NS). With regard to the composite outcome, no difference was found, although a trend towards a higher success rate was noted in the LUSLS group (83.6% vs 66.7%, p = 0.055). Patient satisfaction measured using the PGI-I questionnaire was high, at 98.6% in the LUSLS group and 87.8% in the Uphold group (NS).

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension and vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system both have high clinical cure rates.

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.

Uterus-Sparing Surgery: Outcomes of Transvaginal Uterosacral Ligament Hysteropexy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Recently, there has been a paradigm shift toward uterine conservation during the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), specifically uterine prolapse. There are few reports on transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy (TULH). This study aimed to describe our surgical technique and outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective review and description of surgical technique. Anatomic outcome has been reported using the POP quantification system. Complications were segregated. A comparison of parametric continuous variables was performed using paired t test. Categoric variables were evaluated using the Pearson χ² test and the Fisher exact test. A p-value <.05 was considered significant.

SETTING

Teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Forty patients who underwent TULH from 2009 to 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

TULH.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 40 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 56.1% had preoperative stage 3 prolapse. The median operative time was 116 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss was 158.5 mL. Transient ureteral obstruction occurred in 2 patients. The mean follow-up time was 17.2 months, and all patients had significant improvement of prolapse (p <.001). There was also an improvement in urinary incontinence and bladder storage symptoms (p <.001). None of the patients were reoperated on for recurrent POP.

CONCLUSION

TULH is an effective uterus-preserving surgical alternative for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse and provides good apical support. It is also associated with a low short-term recurrence and incidence of reoperation. TULH is a viable option for suitable patients with uterovaginal prolapse who desire uterine conservation.

Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes in women who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) with or without hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

This was a single-centre prospective study. We included women with symptomatic POP (III-IV stage) who underwent LSC with or without hysterectomy. The preoperative evaluation included a history, clinical examination and urodynamic test; all patients completed FSFI, UDI-6 and IIQ-7 questionnaires. They were followed up at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery and then annually thereafter with the same preoperative flow chart. At the last visit, they also completed the PGI-I questionnaire.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2016, a total of 136 patients with POP were included (82 in the LSC with hysterectomy group and 54 in the hysteropexy group). At a median follow-up of 65.3 months (36-84 months), there were improvements in the anatomical and functional outcomes of both groups without differences between the two approaches. The apical success rate was 100% in all women, without recurrence in either group; the anterior and posterior success rates of hysterectomy were higher than those of uterine preservation.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that there were no differences in the anatomical and functional outcomes between LSC with or without hysterectomy for POP.

Comparison of patient reported outcomes, pelvic floor function and recurrence after laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with McCall suspension for advanced uterine prolapse

OBJECTIVE

To compare medium/long-term outcomes in terms of pelvic floor function, patient reported prolapse recurrence and repeat prolapse surgery after laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSHP) and vaginal hysterectomy with McCall suspension (VH&McCall) which is the most commonly performed surgical option for severe uterine prolapse from past to present.

STUDY DESIGN

Files of patients who underwent LSHP and VH&McCall for advanced utero-vaginal prolapse (stage 3 & 4) at the Department of Gynecology in Ankara University School of Medicine between 2008 and 2018 were reviewed (n = 517). Data of women who were followed up for at least 1-year and containing both the full-filled Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) survey and Turkish validated Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20), were included.

RESULTS

A total of 132 women were included in the study; 46 women who underwent LSHP and 86 women who underwent VH&McCall. Even though the median age of the LSHP group was significantly lower than the median age of VH&McCall group (42 vs. 67 years; P<;0.001), recurrence and repeat surgery rates were found to be similar after both surgical approaches as well as the scores of PGI-I and PFDI-20. However, in women who were operated before their sixties, symptomatic recurrence was found to be significantly lower after LSHP than VH&McCall (16.2 % vs. 47.4 %, respectively; P = 0.024) as well as repeat prolapse surgery (2.7 % vs. 26.3 %, respectively; P = 0.014). PGI-I and PFDI-20 scores also suggested better pelvic floor function after LSHP significantly (p = 0.004 & p = 0.003 respectively). When adjusted for age, VH&McCall significantly increased the risk of symptomatic prolapse recurrence compared to LSHP (OR: 4.65; 95 % CI: 1.326-16.312; P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

LSHP and VH&McCall might seem to be surgical options for individualized management with similar pelvic floor function & recurrence in the medium/long-term follow-up, but the age adjusted risk analysis showed higher rates of symptomatic recurrence after VH&McCall. Moreover, the better outcomes after LSHP in the younger subset, revealed the need of further clarification with well-designed prospective studies.

[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.

Conservative management of placental invasion anomalies with an intracavitary suture technique

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of a new surgical suture technique for uterine preservation among patients with placental invasion anomalies.

METHODS

The present prospective case series included women diagnosed with placental invasion anomalies undergoing cesarean deliveries who desired future fertility at the obstetrics department of a Turkish university hospital between January 10, 2013, and April 20, 2017. Patients were diagnosed with ultrasonography and Doppler ultrasonography; the type of placental invasion anomaly (placenta accreta, increta, or percreta) was confirmed intraoperatively. Surgical management involved an intracavitary suture technique after the proximal branch of the uterine artery was clamped and utero-ovarian anastomoses had been blocked. Outcomes included units of blood transfused, intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, duration of hospital admission, and hysterectomy rate.

RESULTS

There were 62 patients included. The mean operative blood loss was 1350 ± 750 mL (range 600-5000 mL). Blood transfusion required a mean of four units (range 2-15). Bleeding was controlled with the intracavitary sutures in 58 (94%) patients. Three patients experienced postoperative wound infections and two patients developed endometritis that required therapy with broad-spectrum antibiotics. The mean length of hospital stay was 3.6 ± 1.6 days (range 2-11). None of the patients required reoperation after the initial surgery.

CONCLUSION

The novel uterus-sparing suture technique was highly effective among patients with placental invasion anomalies.

Uterus preservation is superior to hysterectomy when performing laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh

Introduction and hypothesis

We aimed to compare differences between laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh (LLS) performed with supracervical hysterectomy (LLSHE) and without hysterectomy (LLSUP).

Methods

We retrospectively collected data from women operated by a single surgeon between 2003 and 2011. From a total of 339 women with symptomatic anterior and/or apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and an intact uterus, 224 had LLSUP (70.4%) and 94 had LLSHE (29.6%). Three hundred and sixteen patients were examined at 1 year. Primary outcomes were objective and subjective success at 1 year during clinical evaluation. Secondary outcomes were complications (Clavien-Dindo scale) and mesh exposure. Patient satisfaction was evaluated by telephone interview using a 10-point scale and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement Scale (PGI-I).

Results

LLSUP and LLSHE did not differ for age (mean 57 and 55 years, respectively), preoperative status, complications, and participation at the interview (52 vs 53%). LLSHE is associated with higher mesh exposure (6.5 vs 1.3%, p = 0.014) and more frequent use of Mersilene. Titanium-coated and noncoated polypropylene was more frequently used in LLSUP. At 1 year, both anatomic success rate for the anterior compartment (98.7 vs 94.6%, p = 0.021) and subjective success rate (83.5 vs 72.8%, p = 0.035) were higher for LLSUP. Without hysterectomy, patients more often improved (90.5 vs 76.5%, p = 0.013) and would more frequently recommend the procedure (94.5 vs 80.4%, p = 0.004).

Conclusions

LLS with or without hysterectomy is a safe technique with high patient satisfaction. The uterus-preserving approach appears to result in better anatomic outcome for the anterior compartment, better subjective outcome, and higher patient satisfaction.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00192-018-3678-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is uterine preservation combined with bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy to promote subsequent fertility safe in infiltrative mucinous ovarian cancer?

According to the latest World Health Organization classification (2014), mucinous ovarian cancers should be classified histologically as being either expansile or infiltrative. Compared to other epithelial cancers, both of these mucinous patterns are diagnosed, in the main, at an early stage, although they can affect relatively young patients. The infiltrative subtype is characterized by a morphologically and clinically more aggressive disease versus the expansile form. Consequently, even in young patients who would prefer fertility sparing management, the removal of both ovaries (even for a unilateral tumor) remains a common recommendation. However case reports describing the preservation of the uterus for a further potential pregnancy (following oocyte donation) have now been described. In this series, we present six patients treated for stage I mucinous infiltrative cancer using bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy with uterine preservation. All but one patient underwent 1-step (n = 1) or 2-step (n = 4) surgery, including peritoneal and nodal (4 patients) procedures. Disease stages were IA (n = 2), IC1 (n = 1), IC2 (n = 2), or IC3 (n = 1). While two patients subsequently became pregnant, two patients also suffered disease recurrence. For one patient, recurrence was at the pelvic peritoneum. For the second patient, an ultimately lethal disease recurrence involved the uterine serosa with nodal involvement. The results of this short series lead us to question the safety of this uterine-preserving strategy.

Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The efficacy and safety of removing or preserving the uterus during reconstructive pelvic surgery is a matter of debate.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared hysteropreservation and hysterectomy in the management of uterine prolapse. PubMed, Medline, SciELO and LILACS databases were searched from inception until January 2017. We selected only randomized controlled trials and observational cohort prospective comparative studies. Primary outcomes were recurrence and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes were: operative time, blood loss, visceral injury, voiding dysfunction, duration of catheterization, length of hospital stay, mesh exposure, dyspareunia, malignant neoplasia and quality of life.

RESULTS

Eleven studies (six randomized and five non-randomized) were included involving 910 patients (462 in the hysteropreservation group and 448 in the hysterectomy group). Pooled data including all surgical techniques showed no difference between the groups regarding recurrence of uterine prolapse (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.88-3.10; p = 0.12), but the risk of recurrence following hysterectomy was lower when the vaginal route was used with native tissue repair (RR 10.61; 95% CI 1.26-88.94; p = 0.03). Hysterectomy was associated with a lower reoperation rate for any prolapse compartment than hysteropreservation (RR 2.05; 95% CI 1.13-3.74; p = 0.02). Hysteropreservation was associated with a shorter operative time (mean difference -12.43 min; 95% CI -14.11 to -10.74 ; p < 0.00001) and less blood loss (mean difference -60.42 ml; 95% CI -71.31 to -49.53 ml; p < 0.00001). Other variables were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the rate of recurrence of uterine prolapse was not lower but the rate of reoperation for prolapse was lower following hysterectomy, while operative time was shorter and blood loss was less with hysteropreservation. The limitations of this analysis were the inclusion of nonrandomized studies and the variety of surgical techniques. The results should be interpreted with caution due to potential biases.

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.

Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 10 years' experience

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Uterine prolapse is common and has traditionally been treated by vaginal hysterectomy. Increasingly, women are seeking uterine-preserving alternatives. Laparoscopic hysteropexy offers resuspension of the uterus using polypropylene mesh. We report on 10 years' experience with this technique.

METHODS

All hysteropexy procedures in our unit since 2006 were reviewed. Primary outcome was safety of hysteropexy, as assessed by intraoperative and major postoperative complications. Secondary outcomes were measures of feasibility, including operating time, length of stay, conversion to alternative procedures, change in point C, patient satisfaction, and repeat apical prolapse surgery.

RESULTS

Data were available for 507 women. Complications were rare (1.8%) with no evidence of any mesh exposure. Mean operating time was 62.5 min and median length of stay 2 nights. In 17 patients (3.4%), hysteropexy was abandoned. There was a mean change in point C of 7.9 cm and 93.8% of patients felt that their prolapse was "very much" or "much" better. Of these women, 2.8% have had repeat apical surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the largest series to date, describing 10 years' experience with laparoscopic hysteropexy. The surgical technique appears to be safe, with low complication rates, which supports the choice of appropriately selected women to opt for uterine preservation surgery as an alternative to hysterectomy for the management of uterine prolapse.

Laparoscopic Pectouteropexy: Alternative Technique for Uterine Preservation

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To show an alternative technique of laparoscopic pectouteropexy for uterine preservation in young women.

DESIGN

A step-by-step explanation of the technique using videos (educative video).

SETTING

In recent years, uterine preservation surgery for pelvic organ prolapse has become more popular. Sacrouteropexy is traditionally performed for prolapsus surgery, but the procedure continues to be associated with an increased length of stay, increased analgesic requirements, small bowel obstruction, ileus, and de novo stres urinary incontinence. An alternative technique of laparoscopic pectouteropexy has been developed for the preservation of fertility in younger women; this technique uses lateral parts of the iliopectineal ligament for a bilateral mesh fixation of the descended structures and provides strong apical support.

CONCLUSION

The iliopectineal ligament is far from the ureter, intestine, sigmoid, and presacral veins during surgery, so the iliopectineal ligament is in a safe anatomic zone for uterine preservation surgery. Laparoscopic pectouteropexy might be an alternative technique for preservation of the uterus in young patients.

In the footsteps of Bonney and Nichols: hysterectomy during surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse

Based on the available urogynecological literature, the role of hysterectomy in the surgical strategy of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair remains controversial. Currently, there are no data to favor either the removal or preservation of the uterus in women with POP. The findings that hysterectomy may contribute to a higher success rate and to the development of urinary incontinence and/or female sexual dysfunction are not supported by evidence. It is not clear why both hysteropexy was sometimes performed in the presence of overt uterine prolapse and/or concomitant vaginal hysterectomy was often included in vaginal prolapse repair in the absence of uterine prolapse. In our opinion, it makes both anatomical and clinical sense to remove the uterus only (and always) when the uterus is one of the pelvic organs directly involved in the prolapse, but to preserve and suspend the uterus otherwise.