Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Women’s well-being after Manchester procedure for pelvic reconstruction with uterine preservation: a follow-up study

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study describes the outcomes of a modified Manchester procedure on the quality of life and sexual functioning of women with elongation of the uterine cervix with or without pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

Data on medical and demographic variables were collected from medical files and then women were invited to for follow-up examination and data collection.

Results

Follow-up data were collected from 53 out of 87 women who underwent reconstructive surgery with modified Manchester procedure (60.9% of the women). Prior the surgery, all women in this sample (n = 53) were medically examined and found to have uterine cervix elongation, 40/53 (75.4%) women also had cystocele, 10/53 women (18.8%) had uterine prolapse and 8/53 women (15.1%) had rectocele (all stages II–IV). On follow-up examination, all the cervical stumps were satisfactorily situated, recurrent cystocele was found among 12/53 women (22.6%) women; 13/53 (24.5%) had rectocele; and none of these women had uterine prolapse. Women with POP (cystocele and rectocele) (24/53) had less operative satisfaction (p = 0.004), lower quality of life (p < 0.05 in 3 out of 8 domains), and poorer sexual function (p = 0.03) compared to women without POP (29/53).

Conclusion

The modified Manchester procedure including reconstructive surgery for women with cervix elongation, with or without POP, prevented recurrent uterine prolapse and was well received in terms of patient’s satisfaction, quality of life, and sexual function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. DeLancey J, Richardson A (1992) Anatomy of genial support. In: Benson J (ed) Female pelvic floor disorders. Norton Medical Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Adams EJ, Hagen S, Glazener CM (2010) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD004014

  3. Hagen S, Stark D, Maher C, Adams E (2008) Conservative management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD003882

  4. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. DeLancey JO (2005) The hidden epidemic of pelvic floor dysfunction: achievable goals for improved prevention and treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1488–1495

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lawrence JM, Lukacz ES, Nager CW, Hsu JW, Luber KM (2008) Prevalence and co-occurrence of pelvic floor disorders in community-dwelling women. Obstet Gynecol 111:678–685

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. MacLennan AH, Taylor A, David H (2000) The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. Int J Obstet Gynaecol 107:1460–1470

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S (2005) P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:176–81 (discussion 81)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Liebergall-Wischnitzer M, Hochner-Celnikier D, Lavy Y, Manor O, Shveiky D, Paltiel O (2009) Randomized trial of circular muscle versus pelvic floor training for stress urinary incontinence in women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 18:377–385

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Rogers GR, Villarreal A, Kammerer-Doak D, Qualls C (2001) Sexual function in women with and without urinary incontinence and/or pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:361–365

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD (2007) Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 369:1027–1038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Diwan A, Rardin CR, Kohli N (2004) Uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15:286–292

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Zucchi A, Lazzeri M, Porena M, Mearini L, Costantini E (2010) Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol 7:626–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Petros P (2000) Influence of hysterectomy on pelvic-floor dysfunction. Lancet 356:1275

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MI, Vierhout ME (2009) The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:1313–1319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thys SD, Coolen AL, Martens IR et al (2011) A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 22(9):1171–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M (2005) Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur Urol 48:642–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hefni M, El-Toukhy T, Bhaumik J, Katsimanis E (2003) Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:645–650

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ayhan A, Esin S, Guven S, Salman C, Ozyuncu O (2006) The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 92:228–233

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Baden WF, Walker TA, Lindsey JH (1968) The vaginal profile. Tex Med 64:56–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29:4–20

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ozel B, White T, Urwitz-Lane R, Minaglia S (2006) The impact of pelvic organ prolapse on sexual function in women with urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17:14–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. de Oliveira MS, Tamanini JT, de Aguiar Cavalcanti G (2009) Validation of the Prolapse Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (P-QoL) in Portuguese version in Brazilian women. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:1191–1202

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Svihrova V, Digesu GA, Svihra J, Hudeckova H, Kliment J, Swift S (2010) Validation of the Slovakian version of the P-QOL questionnaire. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21:53–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fenton KA, Johnson AM, McManus S, Erens B (2001) Measuring sexual behaviour: methodological challenges in survey research. Sex Transm Infect 77:84–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Henrietta Szold Hadassah-Hebrew University School of Nursing, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, POB 12000, Jerusalem, 91120, Israel

    Michal Liebergall-Wischnitzer

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hadassah-Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

    Assaf Ben-Meir & Yuval Lavy

  3. Spitzer Department of Social Work, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel

    Orly Sarid & Julie Cwikel

  4. Center for Women’s Health Studies and Promotion, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel

    Orly Sarid & Julie Cwikel

Authors
  1. Michal Liebergall-Wischnitzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Assaf Ben-Meir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Orly Sarid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Julie Cwikel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yuval Lavy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michal Liebergall-Wischnitzer.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liebergall-Wischnitzer, M., Ben-Meir, A., Sarid, O. et al. Women’s well-being after Manchester procedure for pelvic reconstruction with uterine preservation: a follow-up study. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285, 1587–1592 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2195-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-011-2195-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation