Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Management Options for Women with Uterine Prolapse Interested in Uterine Preservation

  • Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Voiding Dysfunction (G Badlani and H Goldman, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A variety of nonsurgical and surgical treatment options exist for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. While nonsurgical management is often selected as first-line treatment, many women eventually elect to undergo surgical management. Traditionally, prolapse repair often includes concomitant hysterectomy; however, women increasingly desire uterine preservation for a myriad of reasons. Multiple surgical procedures have been described to correct apical prolapse while preserving the uterus. Many studies suggest similar anatomic and functional outcomes compared to prolapse procedures with concomitant hysterectomy. Potential benefits include decreased operative time and avoidance of hysterectomy-specific complications, although there are several unique issues to consider if the uterus is retained. Surgeons must provide adequate counseling and preoperative evaluation before proceeding with uterine preservation.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ pro- lapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Falcone T, Walters MD. Hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(3):753–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, Meikle S, Schaffer J, Spino C, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith FJ, Holman CDJ, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Hagen S, Stark D. Conservation prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011, Dec;7;(12).

  6. Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Tillinghast TA, Jackson ND, Myers DL. Patient satisfaction and changes in prolapse and urinary symptoms in women who were fitted success- fully with a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:1025–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ridgeway B, Frick AC, Walter MD. Hysteropexy: A review. Minerva Ginecol. 2008;60:509–28.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Watkins TJ. The treatment of cystocele and uterine prolapse after the menopause. Am Gynaec Obst J. 1899;15:403–48.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thomas AG, Brodman ML, Dottino PR, Bodian C, Friedman Jr F, Bogursky E. Manchester procedure vs. vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse. A comparison. J Reprod Med. 1995;40:299–304.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Conger GT, Keettel WC. The Manchester- Fothergill operation, its place in gynecology; a review of 960 cases at University Hospitals, Iowa City, Iowa. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1958;76:634–40.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Tipton RH, Atkin PF. Uterine disease after the Manchester repair operation. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1970;77:852–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MI, Vierhout ME. The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:1313–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Williams BF. Surgical treatment for uterine prolapse in young women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966;95:967–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Richardson DA, Scotti RJ, Ostegard DR. Surgical management of uterine prolapse in young women. J Repord Med. 1989;34:388–92.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH. Successful pregnancies and vaginal deliveries after sacrospinous uterosacral fixation in five of nineteen patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:1778–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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;12:381–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. 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;188:645–50.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 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;14:350–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Jeng CJ, Yang YC, Tzeng CR, Shen J, Wang LR. Sexual functional after vaginal hysterectomuy or transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension for uterine prolapse: a comparison. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:669–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dietz V, de Jong J, Hauisman M, Schraffordt Koops S, Jeingt P, van der Vaart J. The effeciveness of the sacropspinous solpopexy for uterovagina prolapse. Int Urologyncol J Pelvic Floor. 2007;18:1271–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dietz V, Huisman M, de Jong JM, Heintz PM, van der Vaart CH. Functional outcome after sacrospinous hystereopexy for uterine descensus. Int J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:747–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. • 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. 2010;21:209–16. This nonblinded multicentered randomized trial compares patients sacrospinous hysteropexy with vaginal hysterectomy. The authors showed that there were no differences in functional outcomes and quality of life. Additionally, sacrospinous hysteropexy was associated with earlier recovery time but more recurrent apical prolapses.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. United States Food and Drug Administration. Urogynecologic Surgical Mesh: Update on the Safety and Effectiveness of Transvaginal Placement for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/UCM262760.pdf.

  24. Feiner B, Gietelink L, Maher C. Anterior vaginal mesh sacrospinous hysteropexy and posterior fascial plication for anterior compartment dominated uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:203–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. McDermott CD, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. Surgical outcomes following total Prolift: Colpopexy versus hysteropexy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51(1):61–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. • 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. This study examines the use of the Uphold mesh system performed with and without hysterectomy and provides both anatomic and subjective outcomes.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stoesser FG. Construvtyion of a sacrocervical ligament for uterine suspension. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1955;101:638–41.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Nesbitt Jr RE. Uterine preservation in the surgical management of genuine stress urinary incontinence associated with uterovaginal prolapse. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1989;168:143–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Joshi VM. A new technique of uterine suspension to pectineal ligaments in the management of uterovaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:790–3.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Leron E, Stanton SL. Sacrohysteropexy with synthetic mesh for the management of uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG. 2001;108:143–7.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Barranger E, Fritel X, Pigne A. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: long-term follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M. Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur Urol. 2005;48:642–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Demirci F, Ozdemir I, Somunkiran A, Doyran GD, Alhan A, Gul B. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: results of 20 cases. J Reprod Med. 2006;51:539–43.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Cvach K, Geoffrion R, Cundiff GW. Abdominal sacral hysteropexy: A pilot study comparing sacral hysteropexy to sacral colpopexy with hysterectomy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:286–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Maher CF, Carey MP, Murray CJ. Laparoscopic suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:1010–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Diwan A, Rardin CR, 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;17:378–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Uccella S, Ghezzi F, Bergamini V, Serati M, Cromi A, Franchi M, et al. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligaments plicaiton for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2007;276:225–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Krause HG, Goh JT, Sloane K, Higgs P, Carey MP. Laparoscopic sacral suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:378–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rosenblatt PL, Chelmow D, Ferzandi TR. Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of uterine prolapse: a retrospective case series report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:268–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG. 2010;117:62–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gimbel H, Zobbe V, Andersen BM, Filtenborg T, Gluud C, Tabor A. Randomised controlled trial of total compared with subtotal hysterectomy with one-year follow up results. BJOG. 2003;110:1088–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Moorman PG, Myers ER, Schildkraut JM, Iversen ES, Wang F, Warren N. Effect of hysterectomy with ovarian preservation on ovarian function. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1271–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. • 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. This survey study showed that women prefer to retain their uterus at the time of surgery in the absence of a substantial benefit to hysterectomy.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lewis CM, Culligan P. Sacrohysteropexy followed by successful pregnancy and eventual reoperation for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:957–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Storm HH, Clemmensen IH, Manders T, Brinton LA. Supravaginal uterine amputation in Denmark 1978–1988 and risk of cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;45(2):198–201.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Kilkku P, Gronroos M. Peroperative electrocoagulation of endocervical mucosa and later carcinoma of the cervical stump. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61:265–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Committee Opinion No. 388: Supracervical Hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 110(5):1215-1217.

  49. ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 131: Screening for cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2012, 120(5):1222-1238.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 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;202:507.e1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

ᅟ

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Nathan Kow reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

Dr. Howard B. Goldman serves as a Section Editor for Current Urology Reports.

Dr. Beri Ridgeway reported no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. From the Center of Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Disorders, Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women’s Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic and the Glickman Urological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA

    Nathan Kow, Howard B. Goldman & Beri Ridgeway

  2. Fellow, Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Center of Urogynecology and Pelvic Floor Disorders, Desk A-81, Obstetrics, Gynecology & Women’s Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Nathan Kow

Authors
  1. Nathan Kow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Howard B. Goldman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Beri Ridgeway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Kow.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kow, N., Goldman, H.B. & Ridgeway, B. Management Options for Women with Uterine Prolapse Interested in Uterine Preservation. Curr Urol Rep 14, 395–402 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-013-0336-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-013-0336-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation