Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 1- to 4-year follow-up of women postoperatively
- 605 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
Uterine conserving re-suspension surgery has become more popular in recent years. Such surgery may allow preservation of fertility in younger women, but may also have the added benefit of augmenting weak connective tissue and possibly providing stronger apical support than the conventional hysterectomy. Our goal was to evaluate the 1- to 4-year outcome of laparoscopic hysteropexy for the surgical management of uterine prolapse.
This study was a prospective observational study of 182 consecutive women who underwent laparoscopic hysteropexy, with or without additional vaginal repair, from the beginning of 2007 until the end of 2010. Women were invited to attend a dedicated clinic for interview and their prolapse was assessed using the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I), the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire for Vaginal Symptoms (ICIQ-VS) and the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) scale. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare pre-operative with postoperative data. Complications and women’s satisfaction were also noted.
One hundred and forty women agreed to participate; the mean interval from operation was 2.1 years (range 1–4.4). Eighty-nine percent of women felt that their prolapse is “very much” or “much” better using PGI-I subjective outcome measure. There was significant improvement for all parameters of ICIQ-VS and POP-Q scoring post-surgery (p < 0.001). Six women (4 %) had further apical prolapse; of these, 3 underwent further prolapse surgery. None of the participants had any mesh exposure. Ninety two percent of participants would recommend the operation.
Laparoscopic hysteropexy is a safe and effective treatment. The 1- to 4-year outcome suggests high patient satisfaction and low rates of apical prolapse recurrence. Longer term follow-up and randomized controlled studies are required.
KeywordsUterovaginal prolapse Hysteropexy Laparoscopic Uterine preservation Uterine suspension Mesh
Conflicts of interest
Details of ethics approval
No ethical approval was required for this investigation as it was a simple observational study (clinical audit). Approval was obtained from the regional audit committee.
- 1.Abdel-Fattah M, Familusi A, Fielding S, Ford J, Bhattacharya S (2011) Primary and repeat surgical treatment for female pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in parous women in the UK: a register linkage study. BMJ Open 1(2):e000206. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000206 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Rahmanou P, Price N, Jackson S (2013) Laparoscopic Hysteropexy- A novel technique for uterine preservation surgery. Int Urogynecol J. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2129-4
- 13.Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, Athanasiou S, Swift S, Whitmore K, Ghoniem G, de Ridder D (2012) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 23(5):527–535. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1726-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, Monga A, Petri E, Rizk DE, Sand PK, Schaer GN (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21(1):5–26. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, Dwyer PL, Fatton B, Kocjancic E, Lee J, Maher C, Petri E, Rizk DE, Sand PK, Schaer GN, Webb RJ (2011) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22(1):3–15. doi: 10.1007/s00192-010-1324-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Dietz V, de Jong J, Huisman M, Schraffordt Koops S, Heintz P, van der Vaart H (2007) The effectiveness of the sacrospinous hysteropexy for the primary treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(11):1271–1276. doi: 10.1007/s00192-007-0336-6 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.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(11):1313–1319. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0945-3 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Pakbaz M, Mogren I, Lofgren M (2009) Outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse: a population-based, retrospective, cross-sectional study of patient perceptions of results including sexual activity, urinary symptoms, and provided care. BMC Womens Health 9:9. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-9-9 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, Fine P, Menefee S, Ridgeway B, Visco A, Warren LK, Zhang M, Meikle S (2013) Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA 309(19):2016–2024. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919 PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Glazener C (2013) Vault or uterine prolapse surgery evaluation: The VUE study. http://isrctn.org/ISRCTN86784244