Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Functional outcome after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with or without concomitant hysterectomy

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

When counseling patients about surgical alternatives for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair, numerous things have to be considered. Uterine preservation vs. hysterectomy is one relevant issue. Hysterectomy has been traditionally performed for POP, but its benefit regarding outcome has never been proven. Furthermore, a growing number of women ask for uterine preservation.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, 384 patients who had undergone surgery for POP between 2000 and 2012 at Freiburg University Medical Center were included. Using a standardized questionnaire, further surgeries, urinary incontinence, recurrent POP, pessary use, and satisfaction with the surgical outcome were evaluated. The functional results after uterine preservation vs. concomitant hysterectomy were compared using t test.

Results

196 (51.04 %) women were available for follow-up and agreed to participate (n = 122 with hysterectomy, n = 72 with uterine-preserving surgery, respectively). After a mean follow-up time of 67 months, vaginal bulge symptoms and urinary incontinence did not differ between treatment groups. We observed higher success rates and satisfaction scores in the uterine-preserving group. Regarding satisfaction with surgery and whether the patients thought it had been successful, we observed a trend toward better results in the uterine-preserving group (mean satisfaction score: 8.45 ± 2.15 vs. 7.76 ± 2.91, range 0–10, p = 0.061; success: 91.4 vs. 81.7 %, p = 0.087).

Conclusions

There was no difference with regard to functional outcome between patients with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Satisfaction with the operation was slightly higher after uterus preserving surgery. Therefore, uterine-preserving surgery is a valuable option unless there are contraindications.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

Abbreviation :

POP Pelvic organ prolapse

References

  1. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N (2010) Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 116(5):1096–1100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev; 4:CD004014. Review

  3. Cheon C, Maher C (2013) Economics of pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 24(11):1873–1876

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lykke R, Blaakær J, Ottesen B, Gimbel H (2013) Hysterectomy in Denmark 1977–2011: changes in rate, indications, and hospitalization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol; pii: S0301-2115(13)00461-2

  5. Walters MD, Ridgeway BM (2013) Surgical treatment of vaginal apex prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 121(2 Pt 1):354–374

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rosati M, Bramante S, Bracale U, Pignata G, Azioni G (2013) Efficacy of laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for apical support of pelvic organ prolapse. JSLS. 17(2):235–244

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee T, Rosenblum N, Nitti V, Brucker BM (2013) Uterine sparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy for pelvic organ prolapse: safety and feasibility. J Endourol 27(9):1131–1136

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bonney V (1934) The principles that should underline all operations for prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Empire 41:669–683

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Jeppson PC, Sung VW (2013) Hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse: indications and techniques. Clin Obstet Gynecol

  10. Gutman R, Maher C (2013) Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J 24(11):1803–1813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Persson P, Brynhildsen J, Kjølhede P (2013) Hysterectomy Multicentre Study Group in South-East Sweden. Pelvic organ prolapse after subtotal and total hysterectomy: a long-term follow-up of an open randomised controlled multicentre study. BJOG 120(12):1556–1565

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Collinet P, Belot F, Debodinance P, Ha Duc E, Lucot JP, Cosson M (2006) Transvaginal mesh technique for pelvic organ prolapse repair: mesh exposure management and risk factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(4):315–320

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Caquant F, Collinet P, Debodinance P, Berrocal J, Garbin O, Rosenthal C, Clave H, Villet R, Jacquetin B, Cosson M (2008) Safety of transvaginal mesh procedure: retrospective study of 684 patients. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 34(4):449–456

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Farthmann J, Watermann D, Niesel A, Fünfgeld C, Kraus A, Lenz F, Augenstein HJ, Graf E, Gabriel B (2013) Lower exposure rates of partially absorbable mesh compared to nonabsorbable mesh for cystocele treatment: 3-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial. Int Urogynecol J 24(5):749–758

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Costantini E, Porena M, Lazzeri M, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A (2013) Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair: role of hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 24(9):1481–1487

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, Spino C (2009) Pelvic floor disorders network. defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114(3):600–609

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Barber MD, Maher C (2013) Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 24(11):1783–1790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Barber MD, Maher C (2013) Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 24(11):1815–1833

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Center, Hugstetterstr. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Juliane Farthmann, Thalia Erbes, Katrin Roth, Petia Nanovska, Gerald Gitsch & Boris Gabriel

  2. Diakoniekrankenhaus Freiburg, Wirthstr. 11, 79110, Freiburg, Germany

    Dirk Watermann

  3. St. Josefs-Hospital Wiesbaden, Beethovenstr. 20, 65189, Wiesbaden, Germany

    Boris Gabriel

Authors
  1. Juliane Farthmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dirk Watermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thalia Erbes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katrin Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Petia Nanovska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gerald Gitsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Boris Gabriel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliane Farthmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Farthmann, J., Watermann, D., Erbes, T. et al. Functional outcome after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291, 573–577 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3435-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3435-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation