Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 19:15 | Cite as

Hysteropexy: an Option for the Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

  • Sarah Bradley
  • Robert E. Gutman
  • Lee A. Richter
Female Urology (L Cox, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Female Urology

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Women have an estimated 12.6% lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in the USA (Wu et al. in Obstet Gynecol 123(6): 1201–6, 2014). Surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse most commonly includes hysterectomy and vaginal vault suspension; however, the value of concomitant hysterectomy is uncertain, and there appears to be growing interest in uterine conservation. Multiple procedures have evolved using a variety of approaches. The aim of this paper is to review uterine sparing (hysteropexy) prolapse repair techniques and outcomes.

Recent Findings

Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have shown comparable success rates for apical compartment support with sacrospinous hysteropexy as compared to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, with shorter hospitalization and quicker return to work. (Detollenaere et al. in BMJ 351: h3717, 2015); (Dietz et al. in Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21(2): 209–16, 2010). Available data suggest vaginal mesh hysteropexy is as effective as vaginal mesh with hysterectomy, with lower rates of mesh exposure. (Maher et al., 2017) To date, no RCTs have been published comparing sacral hysteropexy to hysterectomy with sacral colpopexy. Overall, there is a higher reoperation rate for sacral hysteropexy and a higher mesh exposure rate for hysterectomy with sacral colpopexy. (Maher et al., 2017) No RCTs have been published comparing hysteropexy surgical approaches.

Summary

Although hysteropexy data is expanding, there is a need for more information regarding long-term surgical durability, appropriate patient selection, and whether one approach is superior to another.

Keywords

Sacral hysteropexy Sacral colpopexy Hysteropexy Sacrospinous hysteropexy 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Sarah Bradley, Robert E. Gutman, and Lee A. Richter each declare no potential conflicts 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.

References

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

  1. 1.
    Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ridgeway BM, Frick AC. Chapter 26: uterine conservation for the surgical treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. In: Walters MD, Karram M, editors. Urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2014. p. 383–99.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.e1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(6 Pt 1):1717–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(92)91562-O.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.035.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pearce CL, Stram DO, Ness RB, Stram DA, Roman LD, Templeman C, et al. Population distribution of lifetime risk of ovarian cancer in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24(4):671–6.  https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Frick AC, Walters MD, Larkin KS, Barber MD. Risk of unanticipated abnormal gynecologic pathology at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(5):507 e1–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2010.01.077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parker WH, Feskanich D, Broder MS, Chang E, Shoupe D, Farquhar CM, et al. Long-term mortality associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation in the nurses’ health study. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):709–16.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182864350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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 = Taiwanyizhi. 2005;104(4):249–53.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harris WJ. Early complications of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1995;50(11):795–805.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-199511000-00019.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Farquhar CM, Sadler L, Harvey SA, Stewart AW. The association of hysterectomy and menopause: a prospective cohort study. BJOG. 2005;112(7):956–62.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00696.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    •• Maher C, et al. Surgical Treatment of Uterovaginal Prolapse, IV. Committee 15: Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery. Incontinence, 6th ed 2017, pages 1874–1886. Editors Abrams, P, Cardoza, L, et al. International Continence Society. Summary of all available paper for all modalities of hysteropexy Tables and references of all prior studies along with critical findings Critical evaluation of the literature with recommendations for best practice based on level of evidence available at the end of the summary.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitzgerald MP, Richter HE, Bradley CS, et al. Pelvic support, pelvic symptoms, and patient satisfaction after colpocleisis. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1603–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0696-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bochenska K, Leader-Cramer A, Mueller M, et al. Perioperative complications following colpocleisis with and without concomitant vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1671–5.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2010;21(2):209–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1014-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hefni M, El-Toukhy T, Bhaumik J, Katsimanis E. Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(3):645–50.  https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s001920170017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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):350–5; discussion 5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-003-1084-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morley GW, DeLancey JO. Sacrospinous ligament fixation for eversion of the vagina. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1988;158(4):872–81.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(88)90088-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Morgan DM, Rogers MAM, Huebner M, Wei JT, DeLancey JO. Heterogeneity in anatomic outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation for prolapse: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(6):1424–33.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000264066.89094.21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rosen DMSA, Cario GM, Carlton MA, Chou D. Is hysterectomy necessary for laparoscopic pelvic floor repair? J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(6):729–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2008.08.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Diwan ARC, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2012.10.014.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Romanzi LJ, Tyagi R. Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(5):625–31.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1635-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maher C, Schmid C, Baessler K, Feiner B. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5.
  30. 30.
    Haya N, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, de Tayrac R, Dietz V, Guldberg R, et al. Prolapse and continence surgery in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2012. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):755 e1–e27.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Huang KHCF, Fu HC, Kung FT. Polypropylene mesh as an alternative option for uterine preservation in pelvic reconstruction in patients with uterine prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2012;38(1):97–101.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-0756.2011.01647.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Neuman M, Lavy Y. Conservation of the prolapsed uterus is a valid option: medium term results of a prospective comparative study with the posterior intravaginal slingoplasty operation. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(8):889–93.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0262-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chu LC, Chuang FC, Kung FT, Huang KH. Comparison of short-term outcomes following pelvic reconstruction with perigee and apogee systems: hysterectomy or not? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(1):79–84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1513-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vu MK, Letko J, Jirschele K, Gafni-Kane A, Nguyen A, Du H, et al. Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial anatomical and subjective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(12):1753–61.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1780-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roovers J, van der Vaart C, van der Bom J, van Leeuwen J, Scholten P, Heintz A. A randomized controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG. 2004;111(1):50–6.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00001.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2761-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2005.04.022.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Costantini E, Porena M, Lazzeri M, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A. Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair: role of hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(9):1481–7.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-2041-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):93–101.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kow N, Goldman HB, Ridgeway B. Uterine conservation during prolapse repair: 9-year experience at a single institution. Female Pelvic Med Reconstruct Surg. 2016;22(3):126–31.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    • Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, Matthews C, Park AJ, Iglesia CB, et al. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(1):38.e1–11. Well-designed cohort study and the only prospective study comparing efficacy and adverse effects of two hysteropexy approaches outcomes at 12 months of subjective, objective, and composite criteria.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Bradley
    • 1
  • Robert E. Gutman
    • 1
  • Lee A. Richter
    • 1
  1. 1.WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations