Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Uterine Conservation at the Time of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: the Options for Patients and Providers

  • Pelvic Organ Prolapse (M Weinstein, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a growing field. POP surgery has traditionally involved performing a hysterectomy at the time of repair for apical compartment prolapse. In recent years, providers and patients have called the medical necessity of this practice into question. There is growing evidence that uterine conservation may be a viable option during the time of prolapse repair. This article will review the historical perspective of uterine conservation, patient selection, conservative management, as well as surgical techniques and recent supporting literature of uterine-sparing procedures for POP. As women seek more minimally invasive approaches for prolapse repair, we anticipate that uterine conservation will continue to gain popularity.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, Dieter AA, Myers ER, Sung VW. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):230–5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Khan AA, Eilber KS, Clemens JQ, Wu N, Pashos CL, Anger JT. Trends in management of pelvic organ prolapse among female medicare beneficiaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(4):463–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):470–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wong K, Jakus-Waldman S, Yazdany T. Patient beliefs regarding hysterectomy in women seeking surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: findings in a predominantly Hispanic population. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(5):267–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Shah SM, Sultan AH, Thakar R. The history and evolution of pessaries for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(2):170–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tizzano A, Fidela PR. The evolution of pelvic surgery. 2015. AUGS. 2-24-0012. Ref Type: Online Source.

  8. Barbalat Y, Tunuguntla HS. Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a historical perspective. Curr Urol Rep. 2012;13(3):256–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kow N, Goldman HB, Ridgeway B. Management options for women with uterine prolapse interested in uterine preservation. Curr Urol Rep. 2013;14(5):395–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ridgeway BM. Does prolapse equal hysterectomy? The role of uterine conservation in women with uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(6):802–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Braekken IH, Majida M, Engh ME, Bo K. Can pelvic floor muscle training reverse pelvic organ prolapse and reduce prolapse symptoms? An assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(2):170–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Due U, Brostrom S, Lose G. Lifestyle advice with or without pelvic floor muscle training for pelvic organ prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2015.

  13. Hagen S, Stark D. Conservative prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12:CD003882.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hefni MA, El-Toukhy TA. Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal and vault prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127(2):257–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Maher CF, Cary MP, Slack MC, Murray CJ, Milligan M, Schluter P. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12(6):381–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Schraffordt Koops SE. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):209–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1803–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB, et al. 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. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Romanzi LJ, Tyagi R. Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(5):625–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tipton RH, Atkin PF. Uterine disease after the Manchester repair operation. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1970;77(9):852–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Khunda A, Vashisht A, Cutner A. New procedures for uterine prolapse. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;27(3):363–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MI, Vierhout ME. 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. 2009;20(11):1313–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Daneshgari F. Words of wisdom. Re: FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Eur Urol. 2009;55(5):1235–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Murphy M, Holzberg A, van Raalte H, Kohli N, Goldman HB, Lucente V. Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on Serious Complications Associated with Transvaginal Placement of Surgical Mesh for Pelvic Organ Prolapse”. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(1):5–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Obstetrical and Gynecological Devices; Reclassification of Surgical Mesh for Transvaginal Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair; Final order. Fed Regist 2016;81(2):353–61.

  26. AstoraHealth.com. Astora Women’s Health: Physicians, Hospitals, Centers, Investigators FAQs. 2016. Ref Type: Online Source

  27. Kozal S, Ripert T, Bayoud Y, Menard J, Nicolacopoulos I, Bednarzyck L, et al. Morbidity and functional mid-term outcomes using Prolift pelvic floor repair systems. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014;8(9–10):E605–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Huang LY, Chu LC, Chiang HJ, Chuang FC, Kung FT, Huang KH. Medium-term comparison of uterus preservation versus hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse treatment with Prolift mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(7):1013–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stanford EJ, Moore RD, Roovers JP, VanDrie DM, Giudice TP, Lukban JC, et al. Elevate and uterine preservation: two-year results. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(4):205–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Cho MK, Kim CH, Kang WD, Kim JW, Kim SM, Kim YH. Anatomic and functional outcomes with the prolift procedure in elderly women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse who desire uterine preservation. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2012;19(3):307–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Jirschele K, Seitz M, Zhou Y, Rosenblatt P, Culligan P, Sand P. A multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate mesh-augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):743–8. This study compares sacrospinous hysteropexy using a minimally invasive mesh kit as an alternative to hysterectomy at the time of pelvic organ prolapse repair. Overall success at 12 months, as measured by composite outcome was 97.7 % (with the Ba point as the anatomic landmark) and 96.6 % (with the C point as the anatomic landmark). The risks include mesh exposure which in this study was found at a rate of 6.52 % and reoperation rate was 7.53 %. For the 99 patients in the study, all subjective questionnaire scores and anatomic outcomes had improved at 12 months post operatively.

  32. Crisp CC, Book NM, Cunkelman JA, Tieu AL, Pauls RN. Body image, regret, and satisfaction 24 weeks after colpocleisis: a multicenter study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015.

  33. Hill AJ, Walters MD, Unger CA. Perioperative adverse events associated with colpocleisis for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015.

  34. Shalev E, Bustani M, Peleg D. Laparoscopic ventrofixation: an alternate treatment approach for uterine prolapse. J Gynecol Surg. 1996;12(2):105–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lin LL, Ho MH, Haessler AL, Betson LH, Alinsod RM, Liu CY, et al. A review of laparoscopic uterine suspension procedures for uterine preservation. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;17(5):541–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bedford ND, Seman EI, O’Shea RT, Keirse MJ. Effect of uterine preservation on outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):172–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: a novel technique for uterine preservation surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):139–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1687–94. In this 2015, pilot study, laparoscopic hysteropexy was found to be a safe surgical alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with a similar risk of repeat apical surgery at 1 year. Although longer follow-up data from larger studies are required to make definitive treatment, this study shows the feasibility of new techniques in minimally invasive uterine-sparing pelvic organ prolpase repair.

  39. Rahmanou P, White B, Price N, Jackson S. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 1- to 4-year follow-up of women postoperatively. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(1):131–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M. Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur Urol. 2005;48(4):642–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Zucchi A, Bini V, Mearini L, Porena M. Five-year outcome of uterus sparing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a single-center experience. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(3):287–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jeon MJ, Jung HJ, Choi HJ, Kim SK, Bai SW. Is hysterectomy or the use of graft necessary for the reconstructive surgery for uterine prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(3):351–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Mourik SL, Martens JE, Aktas M. Uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse using robot assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: quality of life and technique. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165(1):122–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Dubuisson J, Eperon I, Dallenbach P, Dubuisson JB. Laparoscopic repair of vaginal vault prolapse by lateral suspension with mesh. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(2):307–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dallenbach P, Veit N. Robotically assisted laparoscopic repair of anterior vaginal wall and uterine prolapse by lateral suspension with mesh: initial experience and video. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(8):1137–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lewis CM, Culligan P. Sacrohysteropexy followed by successful pregnancy and eventual reoperation for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(7):957–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH. Successful pregnancies and vaginal deliveries after sacrospinous uterosacral fixation in five of nineteen patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168(6 Pt 1):1778–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 West Carson Street, Box 489, Torrance, CA, 90502, USA

    Jessica S. Zigman & Tajnoos Yazdany

  2. Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 West Carson Street, Box 489, Torrance, CA, 90502, USA

    Jessica S. Zigman

Authors
  1. Jessica S. Zigman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tajnoos Yazdany
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tajnoos Yazdany.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Jessica S. Zigman and Tajnoos Yazdany declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zigman, J.S., Yazdany, T. Uterine Conservation at the Time of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Treatment: the Options for Patients and Providers. Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 5, 158–164 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0146-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-016-0146-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation