Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Native tissue sacrospinous hysteropexy from an anterior approach

  • IUJ Video
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Aim of the video

The goal of urogynecologic surgeons is to pair patients with the most appropriate and effective surgery. Sacrospinous hysteropexy has become an increasingly utilized surgical option for uterovaginal prolapse repair. The primary aim of this video is to highlight the role that sacrospinous hysteropexy can have in prolapse repair and to demonstrate an anterior approach for this procedure.

Methods

We performed a literature review to provide general information on the efficacy, risks, and comparative benefits of sacrospinous hysteropexy. Our video demonstrates the key steps in performing a sacrospinous hysteropexy procedure from an anterior approach including method of dissection, suture fixation to the sacrospinous ligament, and cervical suspension.

Results

Sacrospinous hysteropexy has generally been found to be an effective option for uterovaginal prolapse repair in properly selected patients. The demonstrated approach integrates sacrospinous ligament fixation with an anterior colporrhaphy.

Conclusions

Data and experience to date on sacrospinous hysteropexy are largely based on a posterior approach for access to the sacrospinous ligament. This surgical video demonstrates an anterior approach to sacrospinous hysteropexy that is not well characterized in the literature.

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

References

  1. Kapoor S, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(9):1285–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Husby KR, et al. Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(11):1887–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Petruzzelli P, et al. Combined sacrospinous hysteropexy and cystopexy using a single anterior incision. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2016;135(1):101–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Maher CF, et al. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12(6):381–4 discussion 384-5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hefni M, et al. Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(3):645–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lo TS, et al. Long-term outcome of native tissue reconstructive vaginal surgery for advanced pelvic organ prolapse at 86 months: hysterectomy versus hysteropexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41(7):1099–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dietz V, et al. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):209–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Schulten SFM, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ. 2019;366:l5149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Detollenaere RJ, et al. The impact of sacrospinous Hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments on sexual function in women with uterine prolapse: a secondary analysis of a randomized comparative study. J Sex Med. 2016;13(2):213–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cavkaytar S, et al. Pregnancy outcomes after transvaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;216:204–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Wake Forest Baptist Health, Winston Salem, NC, USA

    Andre Plair & Catherine Matthews

Authors
  1. Andre Plair
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Andre Plair, Role: Protocol/project development, data collection, video editing, manuscript writing/editing.

Catherine Matthews, Role: Protocol/project development, data collection, video editing, manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andre Plair.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Andre Plair, grant support from Neomedic.

Catherine Matthews, consultant for Boston Scientific; grant support from Boston Scientific and Neomedic; expert witness for defense, Johnson and Johnson.

Consent

Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this video article and any accompanying images.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

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

Supplementary Information

(MP4 91,453 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Plair, A., Matthews, C. Native tissue sacrospinous hysteropexy from an anterior approach. Int Urogynecol J 32, 1591–1593 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04601-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04601-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation