International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 12, Issue 6, pp 381–385

Uterine Preservation or Hysterectomy at Sacrospinous Colpopexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse?

  • C. F. Maher
  • M. P. Cary
  • M. C. Slack
  • C. J. Murray
  • M. Milligan
  • P. Schluter
Original Article

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 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. F. Maher
    • 1
  • M. P. Cary
    • 1
  • M. C. Slack
    • 2
  • C. J. Murray
    • 1
  • M. Milligan
    • 2
  • P. Schluter
    • 3
  1. 1.Royal Women’s and Mercy Hospital, Melbourne, AustraliaAU
  2. 2.Kent and Canterbury Hospital, Canterbury, UKGB
  3. 3.University of Queensland, AustraliaAU

Personalised recommendations