Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines
Introduction and hypothesis
We aimed to systematically review the literature on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery with uterine preservation (hysteropexy). We hypothesized that different hysteropexy surgeries would have similar POP outcomes but varying adverse event (AE) rates.
MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were reviewed from inception to January 2018 for comparative (any size) and single-arm studies (n ≥ 50) involving hysteropexy. Studies were extracted for participant characteristics, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and AEs and assessed for methodological quality.
We identified 99 eligible studies: 53 comparing hysteropexy to POP surgery with hysterectomy, 42 single-arm studies on hysteropexy, and four studies comparing stage ≥2 hysteropexy types. Data on POP outcomes were heterogeneous and usually from <3 years of follow-up. Repeat surgery prevalence for POP after hysteropexy varied widely (0–29%) but was similar among hysteropexy types. When comparing sacrohysteropexy routes, the laparoscopic approach had lower recurrent prolapse symptoms [odds ratio (OR) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07–0.46), urinary retention (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.003–0.83), and blood loss (difference −104 ml, 95% CI −145 to −63 ml) than open sacrohysteropexy. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy had longer operative times than vaginal mesh hysteropexy (difference 119 min, 95% CI 102–136 min). Most commonly reported AEs included mesh exposure (0–39%), urinary retention (0–80%), and sexual dysfunction (0–48%).
Hysteropexies have a wide range of POP recurrence and AEs; little data exist directly comparing different hysteropexy types. Therefore, for women choosing uterine preservation, surgeons should counsel them on outcomes and risks particular to the specific hysteropexy type planned.
KeywordsHysteropexy Prolapse Surgery Uterine preservation Systematic review Risks
This work is supported by the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons (SGS), whose members comprise the Systematic Review Group (SRG) performing this review. SGS supports the SRG with provision of meeting space and oversight, and aids in the public dissemination of study findings to its members. SGS funds Dr. Balk as a paid methodological consultant.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
KVM is a textbook editor for Elsevier publications and has not yet received any royalties for that publication. The other authors have no conflicts to disclose.
- 7.Ridgeway B, Frick AC, Walter MD. Hysteropexy. A review Minerva Ginecol. 2008;60(6):509–28.Google Scholar
- 8.Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, Kim-Fine S, Balk EM, Murphy M, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129–46 e122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Wallace BC, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Brodley C, Schmid CH. Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:55. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-55.
- 11.Olivera CK, Meriwether K, El-Nashar S, Grimes CL, Chen CC, Orejuela F, et al. Nonantimuscarinic treatment for overactive bladder: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(1):34–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.01.156.
- 15.Trikalinos TA, Hoaglin DC, Schmid CH (2013). In: Empirical and Simulation-Based Comparison of Univariate and Multivariate Meta-Analysis for Binary Outcomes. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. Rockville (MD),Google Scholar
- 16.Atkins D, Eccles M, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Henry D, Hill S, et al. Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: critical appraisal of existing approaches the GRADE working group. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004;4(1):38. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-4-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Joshi VM, Otiv SR, Dagade VB, Borse M, Majumder RN, Shrivastava M, et al. Pectineal ligament Hysteropexy for uterine prolapse in premenopausal women by open and laparoscopic approach in Indian urban and rural centers. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(4):215–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Rimailho J, Talbot C, Bernard JD, Hoff J, Becue J. Anterolateral hysteropexy via abdominal approach. Results and indications. Apropos of a series of 92 patients. Ann Chir. 1993;47(3):244–9.Google Scholar
- 31.Khanam RA, Rubaiyat A, Azam MS. Sling for correcting uterine prolapse: twelve years experience. Mymensingh Med J. 2014;23(1):13–7.Google Scholar
- 32.Veit-Rubin N, Dubuisson JB, Lange S, Eperon I, Dubuisson J. Uterus-preserving laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh for pelvic organ prolapse: a patient-centred outcome report and video of a continuous series of 245 patients. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(3):491–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2859-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Diwan A, Rardin CR, Strohsnitter WC, Weld A, Rosenblatt P, Kohli N. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament uterine suspension compared with vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension for uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17(1):79–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1346-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Khandwala S, Williams C, Reeves W, Dai J, Jayachandran C. Role of vaginal mesh hysteropexy for the management of advanced uterovaginal prolapse. J Reprod Med. 2014;59(7–8):371–8.Google Scholar
- 35.Sheng Q, Ma N, Huang H, Xu B, He C, Song Y. Significance of preoperative calculation of uterine weight as an indicator for preserving the uterus in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8(1):900–5.Google Scholar
- 39.Del Amo E, Burcet G, Vellvé K, Hernández J, Carreras R. Quality of life and patients satisfaction after genital prolapse surgery: vaginal hysterectomy versus mesh hysteropexy. Abstracts of the 44th annual meeting of the international continence society (ICS) 20-24 October, 2014, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Neurourol Urodyn. 2014;33(6):631–1071. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.de Landsheere L, Ismail S, Lucot JP, Deken V, Foidart JM, Cosson M. Surgical intervention after transvaginal Prolift mesh repair: retrospective single-center study including 524 patients with 3 years’ median follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):83 e81–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Malandri M, Iordanidou E, Takou M, Moraitis B, Balaxis D. A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of stage two, or higher uterine prolapse: hysterectomy with mesh versus only mesh implantation. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(6):855.Google Scholar
- 42.Lin TY, Su TH, Wang YL, Lee MY, Hsieh CH, Wang KG, et al. Risk factors for failure of transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension in the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. J Formos Med Assoc. 2005;104(4):249–53.Google Scholar
- 44.Dietz V, de Jong J, Huisman M, Schraffordt Koops S, Heintz P, van der Vaart H. The effectiveness of the sacrospinous hysteropexy for the primary treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(11):1271–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-007-0336-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 47.Abdulsid ATG, Jani M, Elsapagh K, Allam M. Sacrospinous fixation, keep or remove the uterus? That is the question Gynecol Surg. 2016;13(Suppl 1):S1–S453.Google Scholar
- 50.Nava y Sanchez RM, Acosta RU, Ruiz Velasco V, Garcia TL. Manchester’s operation. I. Morbimortality and early complications. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 1973;33(198):347–60.Google Scholar
- 57.Dietz V, CH vV, APM H, SE S-K. Vaginal hysterectomy versus sacrospinous hysteropexy as primary treatment of prolapse: a randomized controlled trial (RCT), a preliminary report (abstract number 285). Int Urogynecol J. 2006;17(Suppl. 2):S171–359.Google Scholar
- 58.Jeng CJ, Yang YC, Tzeng CR, Shen J, Wang LR. Sexual functioning after vaginal hysterectomy or transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension for uterine prolapse: a comparison. J Reprod Med. 2005;50(9):669–74.Google Scholar
- 59.van Brummen HJ, van de Pol G, Aalders CI, Heintz AP, van der Vaart CH. Sacrospinous hysteropexy compared to vaginal hysterectomy as primary surgical treatment for a descensus uteri: effects on urinary symptoms. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(5):350–355; discussion 355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-003-1084-x.
- 60.Kalogirou D, Antoniou G, Karakitsos P, Kalogirou O. Comparison of surgical and postoperative complications of vaginal hysterectomy and Manchester procedure. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol. 1996;17(4):278–80.Google Scholar
- 62.Ubachs JM, van Sante TJ, Schellekens LA. Partial colpocleisis by a modification of LeFort’s operation. Obstet Gynecol. 1973;42(3):415–20.Google Scholar
- 65.Marin Ardila L. Le Fort’s colpocleisis. 10-year study in the gynecology and obstetrics Department of the Hospital san Juan de Dios in Bogota. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol. 1966;17(6):415–24.Google Scholar
- 67.Falk HC, Kaufman SA. Partial colpocleisis: the Le fort procedure; analysis of 100 cases. Obstet Gynecol. 1955;5(5):617–27.Google Scholar
- 69.Denehy TR, Choe JY, Gregori CA, Breen JL. Modified Le fort partial colpocleisis with Kelly urethral plication and posterior colpoperineoplasty in the medically compromised elderly: a comparison with vaginal hysterectomy, anterior colporrhaphy, and posterior colpoperineoplasty. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(6):1697–701 discussion 1701-1692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 70.Geynisman-Tan J, Kenton K. Surgical updates in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Rambam Maimonides Med J. 2017;8(2). https://doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10294.
- 71.Younger A, Rac G, Clemens JQ, Kobashi K, Khan A, Nitti V, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in academic female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery urology practice in the setting of the Food and Drug Administration public health notifications. Urology. 2016;91:46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.12.057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 78.De Vita D, Araco F, Gravante G, Sesti F, Piccione E. Vaginal reconstructive surgery for severe pelvic organ prolapses: a ‘uterine-sparing’ technique using polypropylene prostheses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008;139(2):245–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2008.01.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 84.Li BH, Huang HJ, Song YF. Modified Prolift procedure without trachelectomy or hysterectomy for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse complicated with cervical elongation. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2016;51(3):174–9. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567X.2016.03.003.Google Scholar