Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How do patients and surgeons decide on uterine preservation or hysterectomy in apical prolapse?

  • Clinical Opinion
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Increasingly, uterine preservation surgeries are being performed for treating apical prolapse. Several types of procedures and surgical approaches to correct apical prolapse have been described in the literature. Despite this, there remains inadequate information to provide evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal treatment approach and materials to use, and trials are ongoing to identify the optimal techniques. In the future, our patients may be the strongest determining influence when it comes to choice of apical prolapse surgery, with factors such as autonomy, reproduction, intimacy and fear influencing their decision. It is our opinion that the two most powerful forces behind the choice of apical POP surgical technique are the woman’s personal desire for uterine preservation or not and the surgeon’s personal choice of procedure based on training received. Present management of apical prolapse involves understanding patient goals and acknowledging their treatment preferences and values.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jackson SR, Avery NC, Tariton JF, Eckford SD, Abrans P, Bailey AJ. Changes in metabolism of collagen in genitourinary prolapse. Lancet. 1996;347:1658–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Blandon RE, Bharucha AE, Melton LJ, et al. Incidence of pelvic floor repair after hysterectomy: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):664. e1-664.e7

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 

  4. FitzGerald MP, Elliott C, Brubaker L. New vs. old: descriptors can affect patients’ surgical preferences. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(5):476e. 1–476e.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Korbly NB, 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Marván ML, Quiros V, López-Vázquez E, Ehrenzweig Y. Mexican beliefs and attitudes toward hysterectomy and gender-role ideology in marriage. Health Care Women Int. 2012;33(6):511–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Strohbehn K, Jarkary J, DeLancy J. Pelvic organ prolapse in yound women. Obstetr Gyncecol. 1997;90:33–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Pandeva I, Mistry M, Fayyad A. Efficacy and pregnancy outcomes of laparoscopic single sheet mesh sacrohysteropexy. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017;36(3):787–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chaudhuri S. The place of sling operations in treating genital prolapse in young women. Int J Gynecol. 1979;16:314–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Komisaruk BR, Frangos E, Whipple B. Hysterectomy improves sexual response? Addressing a crucial omission in the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(3):288–95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Roovers JP, van der Bom JG, van der Vaart CH, Heintz AP. Hysterectomy and sexual wellbeing: prospective observational study of vaginal hysterectomy, subtotal hysterectomy, and abdominal hysterectomy. BMJ. 2003;327:774–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Constantini 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nesbitt R. Uterine preservation in the surgical management of genuine stress urinary incontinence associated with uterovaginal prolapse. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1989;168(2):143.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. O’Brien S, Dua A, Vij M. Practices in pelvic organ prolapse operations among surgeons: an international survey identifying needs for further research. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:1221–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kurt S, Canda MT, Tasyurt A. A new surgical method of suprapubic and extraperitoneal approach with uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse: kurt extraperitoneal ligamentopexy. ISRN Obstet Gynecol. 2013;17:748232.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cutner A, Kearney R, Vashisht A. Laparoscopic uterine sling suspension: a new technique of uterine suspension in women desiring surgical management of uterine prolapse with uterine conservation. BJOG. 2007;114(9):1159–62.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Coskun B, Lavelle RS, Alhalabi F, Christie AL, Zimmern PE. Anterior vaginal wall suspension procedure for moderate bladder and uterine prolapse as a method of uterine preservation. J Urol. 2014;192(5):1461–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD004014.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dietz V, Schraffordt Koops SE, van der Vaart CH. Vaginal surgery for uterine descent; which options do we have? A review of the literature. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(3):349–56.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, Matthews C, Park AJ, Iglesia CB, et al. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(1):38. e1-38.e11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urogynaecology, Cork University Maternity Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland

    Breffini Anglim, Orfhlaith O’Sullivan & Barry O’Reilly

  2. ASSERT Centre, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland

    Barry O’Reilly

Authors
  1. Breffini Anglim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Orfhlaith O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barry O’Reilly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Breffini Anglim.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

BC Anglim has received honorarium for speaking at medical conferences.

OE O’Sullivan has received honorarium to attend medical conferences.

BA O’Reilly has received honorarium to attend medical conferences.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anglim, B., O’Sullivan, O. & O’Reilly, B. How do patients and surgeons decide on uterine preservation or hysterectomy in apical prolapse?. Int Urogynecol J 29, 1075–1079 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3685-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3685-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation