Original Article

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 381-385

First online:

Uterine Preservation or Hysterectomy at Sacrospinous Colpopexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse?

  • C. F. MaherAffiliated withRoyal Women’s and Mercy Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
  • , M. P. CaryAffiliated withRoyal Women’s and Mercy Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
  • , M. C. SlackAffiliated withKent and Canterbury Hospital, Canterbury, UK
  • , C. J. MurrayAffiliated withRoyal Women’s and Mercy Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
  • , M. MilliganAffiliated withKent and Canterbury Hospital, Canterbury, UK
  • , P. SchluterAffiliated withUniversity of Queensland, Australia

Rent the article at a discount

Rent now

* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.

Get Access

Abstract

This study retrospectively compared 34 women who had a sacrospinous hysteropexy and 36 who had a vaginal hysterectomy and sacrospinous fixation for symptomatic uterine prolapse. All women underwent independent review and examination, with a mean follow-up of 36 months in the hysterectomy group and 26 months in the hysteropexy group.

 The subjective success rate was 86% in the hysterectomy group and 78% in the hysteropexy group (P = 0.70). The objective success rate was 72% and 74%, respectively (P = 1.00). The patient-determined satisfaction rate was 86% in the hysterectomy group and 85% in the hysteropexy group (P = 1.00). The operating time in the hysterectomy group was 91 minutes, compared to 59 minutes in the hysteropexy group (P<0.01). The mean intraoperative blood loss in the hysterectomy group was 402 ml, compared to 198 ml in the hysteropexy group (P<0.01). The sacrospinous hysteropexy is effective in the treatment of uterine prolapse. Vaginal hysterectomy may not be necessary in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse.

Key words:Hysterectomy – Sacrospinous hysteropexy – Uterine prolapse