Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy versus hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched cohort study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Uterine-sparing procedures are associated with shorter operative time, less blood loss and faster return to activities. Moreover, they are attractive for patients seeking to preserve fertility or concerned about the change of their corporeal image and sexuality after hysterectomy. This study aimed to compare outcomes of transvaginal uterosacral hysteropexy with transvaginal hysterectomy plus uterosacral suspension.

Methods

This retrospective study compared all patients who underwent uterosacral hysteropexy for symptomatic prolapse at our institute to matched control patients who underwent hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension. Anatomic recurrence was defined as postoperative prolapse stage ≥ II or reoperation for prolapse. Subjective recurrence was defined as the presence of bulging symptoms. PGI-I score was used to evaluate the patients’ satisfaction.

Results

One hundred four patients (52 for each group) were analyzed. Mean follow-up was 35 months. Hysteropexy was associated with shorter operative time and less bleeding compared with hysterectomy (p < 0.0001), without differences in complication rates. Moreover, overall anatomic and subjective cure rate and patient satisfaction were similar between groups. However, hysteropexy was found to be associated with a significantly higher central recurrence rate (21.2% versus 1.9%, p = 0.002), mostly related to cervical elongation, and subsequently a higher reoperation rate (13.5% versus 1.9%, p = 0.04). A 42.9% pregnancy rate in patients still desiring childbirth was found.

Conclusions

Transvaginal uterosacral hysteropexy resulted in similar objective and subjective cure rates, and patient satisfaction, without differences in complication rates, compared with vaginal hysterectomy. However, postoperative cervical elongation may lead to higher central recurrence rates and need for reoperation.

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. Milani R, Frigerio M, Cola A, Beretta C, Spelzini F, Manodoro S. Outcomes of transvaginal high uterosacral ligaments suspension: over 500-patient single-Center study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(1):39–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Frigerio M, Manodoro S, Cola A, Palmieri S, Spelzini F, Milani R. Detrusor underactivity in pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(8):1111–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Palmieri S, Cola A, Milani R, Manodoro S, Frigerio M. Quality of life in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse treated with Gellhorn pessary. Minerva Ginecol. 2018;70(4):490–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jha S, Moran P. The UK national prolapse survey: 5 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(5):517–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Vanspauwen R, Seman E, Dwyer P. Survey of current management of prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;50(3):262–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gutman RE. Does the uterus need to be removed to correct uterovaginal prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28(5):435–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Lo TS, Cortes EFM, Wu PY, Tan YL, Al-Kharabsheh A, Pue LB. Assessment of collagen versus non collagen coated anterior vaginal mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery: prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;198:138–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Spelzini F, Manodoro S, Frigerio M, Nicolini G, Maggioni D, Donzelli E, et al. Stem cell augmented mesh materials: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):675–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Milani R, Frigerio M, Manodoro S, Cola A, Spelzini F. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy: a retrospective feasibility study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):73–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Milani R, Frigerio M, Spelzini F, Manodoro S. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy: a video tutorial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(5):789–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, Kuehl TJ. A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183(6):1365–73 discussion 1373-4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Manodoro S, Frigerio M, Milani R, Spelzini F. Tips and tricks for uterosacral ligament suspension: how to avoid ureteral injury. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):161–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Spelzini F, Frigerio M, Manodoro S, Interdonato ML, Cesana MC, Verri D, et al. Modified McCall culdoplasty versus Shull suspension in pelvic prolapse primary repair: a retrospective study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):65–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(5):523–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Manodoro S, Spelzini F, Cesana MC, Frigerio M, Maggioni D, Ceresa C, et al. Histologic and metabolic assessment in a cohort of patients with genital prolapse: preoperative stage and recurrence investigations. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69(3):233–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Manodoro S, Frigerio M, Cola A, Spelzini F, Milani R. Risk factors for recurrence after hysterectomy plus native-tissue repair as primary treatment for genital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):145–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Milani R, Frigerio M, Spelzini F, Manodoro S. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament suspension for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(9):1421–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Milani R, Frigerio M, Vellucci FL, Palmieri S, Spelzini F, Manodoro S. Transvaginal native-tissue repair of vaginal vault prolapse. Minerva Ginecol. 2018;70(4):371–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosen DM, Shukla A, Cario GM, Carlton MA, Chou D. Is hysterectomy necessary for laparoscopic pelvic floor repair? A prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(6):729–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Haj-Yahya R, Chill HH, Levin G, Reuveni-Salzman A, Shveiky D. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament hysteropexy vs total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for anterior and apical prolapse: surgical outcome and patient satisfaction. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019.

  22. Romanzi LJ, Tyagi R. Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(5):625–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hyakutake MT, Cundiff GW, Geoffrion R. Cervical elongation following sacrospinous hysteropexy: a case series. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(6):851–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Meriwether KV, Balk EM, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, Kim-Fine S, Murphy M, et al. Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):505–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1803–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, San Gerardo Hospital, ASST Monza, Monza, Italy

    Rodolfo Milani, Alice Cola, Nicolò Bellante, Stefania Palmieri & Matteo Frigerio

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Infermi Hospital, AUSL Romagna, Viale Luigi Settembrini 2, Rimini, RN, Italy

    Stefano Manodoro

Authors
  1. Rodolfo Milani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefano Manodoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alice Cola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicolò Bellante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Stefania Palmieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Matteo Frigerio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

R Milani: Project development, surgery.

A Cola: Project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing.

N Bellante: Project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing.

S Palmieri: Project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing.

S Manodoro: Project development, surgery, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing.

F Spelzini: Project development, surgery.

M Frigerio: Project development, surgery, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefano Manodoro.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOC 32.5 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milani, R., Manodoro, S., Cola, A. et al. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy versus hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched cohort study. Int Urogynecol J 31, 1867–1872 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04206-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04206-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation