International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 181–191 | Cite as

Pelvic floor symptoms 5 to 14 years after total versus subtotal hysterectomy for benign conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Gabriel Francisco Aleixo
  • Marcelo C. M. Fonseca
  • Maria Augusta Tezelli BortoliniEmail author
  • Luiz Gustavo O. Brito
  • Rodrigo A. Castro
Review Article


Introduction and hypothesis

We aim to compare total versus subtotal abdominal hysterectomy regarding urinary and bowel symptoms and pelvic organ prolapse at long-term follow-up.


A systematic literature search was performed on the MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane CENTRAL and SCOPUS databases and conference abstracts (AAGL, AUGS, ICS) from inception up to November 2017. We included randomized trials comparing total versus subtotal hysterectomy for benign conditions that evaluated pelvic floor symptoms over 5 years of follow-up. Risk of bias and GRADE assessment for quality of evidence were performed.


We included four studies involving 566 participants with follow-up ranging from 5 to 14 years. Women who underwent total hysterectomy presented lower risk of reported urinary incontinence [RR 0.74 (CI = 0.58, 0.94) i2 0%; p = 0.02] and stress urinary incontinence [RR 0.84 (CI = 0.71, 0.99) i2 0%; p = 0.04] than those who had subtotal hysterectomy. The events urinary frequency, urge incontinence, incomplete bladder emptying, pelvic organ prolapse, incontinence of stool and constipation did not favor one procedure over another in the long term (P > 0.05).


Patient-reported urinary incontinence and stress urinary incontinence events favored total hysterectomy over subtotal hysterectomy up to 14-year long-term follow-up.


Total Subtotal Supracervical Hysterectomy Long-term Meta-analysis Review 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest


Supplementary material

192_2018_3811_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 18 kb)


  1. 1.
    Moore BJ, Steiner CA, Davis PH, Stocks C, Barrett ML. Trends in hysterectomies and oophorectomies in hospital inpatient and ambulatory settings, 2005-2013: statistical brief #214. Rockville: Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs; 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mouritsen L. Effect of vaginal devices on bladder neck mobility in stress incontinent women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80(5):428–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Penttinen J, Lindholm EL, Kaar K, Kauppila A. Successful colposuspension in stress urinary incontinence reduces bladder neck mobility and increases pressure transmission to the urethra. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 1989;244(4):233–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gimbel H. Total or subtotal hysterectomy for benign uterine diseases? A meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(2):133–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lethaby A, Mukhopadhyay A, Naik R. Total versus subtotal hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (Online). 2012;4:CD004993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robert M, Soraisham A, Sauve R. Postoperative urinary incontinence after total abdominal hysterectomy or supracervical hysterectomy: a metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(3):264 e1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andersen LL, Moller LM, Gimbel H. Danish hysterectomy trial G. lower urinary tract symptoms after subtotal versus total abdominal hysterectomy: exploratory analyses from a randomized clinical trial with a 14-year follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(12):1767–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Andersen LL, Alling Moller LM, Gimbel HM. Objective comparison of subtotal vs. total abdominal hysterectomy regarding pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled trial with 14-year follow-up. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;193:40–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Andersen LL, Ottesen B, Alling Moller LM, Gluud C, Tabor A, Zobbe V, et al. Subtotal versus total abdominal hysterectomy: randomized clinical trial with 14-year questionnaire follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):758 e1–e54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thakar R, Ayers S, Srivastava R, Manyonda I. Removing the cervix at hysterectomy: an unnecessary intervention? Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(6):1262–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Persson P, Brynhildsen J, Kjolhede P. Hysterectomy multicentre study Group in South-East S. pelvic organ prolapse after subtotal and total hysterectomy: a long-term follow-up of an open randomised controlled multicentre study. BJOG. 2013;120(12):1556–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Greer WJ, Richter HE, Wheeler TL, Varner RE, Szychowski JM, Kuppermann M, et al. Long-term outcomes of the total or supracervical hysterectomy (TOSH) trial. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16(1):49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Houwelingen HC, Arends LR, Stijnen T. Advanced methods in meta-analysis: multivariate approach and meta-regression. Stat Med. 2002;21(4):589–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB, Hedges T. Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26(3):187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Learman LA, Summitt RL Jr, Varner RE, McNeeley SG, Goodman-Gruen D, Richter HE, et al. A randomized comparison of total or supracervical hysterectomy: surgical complications and clinical outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(3):453–62.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gimbel H, Zobbe V, Ottesen BS, Tabor A. Randomized clinical trial of total vs. subtotal hysterectomy: validity of the trial questionnaire. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81(10):968–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boyd SS, O'Sullivan D, Tulikangas P. Use of the pelvic organ quantification system (POP-Q) in published articles of peer-reviewed journals. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1719–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dancz CE, Werth L, Sun V, Lee S, Walker D, Ozel B. Comparison of the POP-Q examination, transvaginal ultrasound, and direct anatomic measurement of cervical length. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):457–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dietz HP, Kamisan Atan I, Salita A. Association between ICS POP-Q coordinates and translabial ultrasound findings: implications for definition of ‘normal pelvic organ support’. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(3):363–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Volloyhaug I, Rojas RG, Morkved S, Salvesen KA. Comparison of transperineal ultrasound with POP-Q for assessing symptoms of prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2018.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Okaro EO, Jones KD, Sutton C. Long term outcome following laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy. BJOG. 2001;108(10):1017–20.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Helstrom L, Backstrom T, Sorbom D, Lundberg PO. Sacral nervous function, hormonal levels and sexuality in premenopausal women before and after hysterectomy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1994;73(7):570–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nathorst-Boos J, von Schoultz B. Psychological reactions and sexual life after hysterectomy with and without oophorectomy. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 1992;34(2):97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Parys BT, Haylen BT, Hutton JL, Parsons KF. Urodynamic evaluation of lower urinary tract function in relation to total hysterectomy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1990;30(2):161–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lethaby A, Ivanova V, Johnson NP. Total versus subtotal hysterectomy for benign gynaecological conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):CD004993.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lauridsen L, Jensen VC. [Total versus subtotal hysterectomy. A follow-up study]. Ugeskr Laeger. 1961;123:298–307.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morelli M, Noia R, Chiodo D, Mocciaro R, Costantino A, Caruso MT, et al. [Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy versus laparoscopic total hysterectomy: a prospective randomized study]. Minerva Ginecol. 2007;59(1):1–10.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Persson P, Brynhildsen J, Kjolhede P. Hysterectomy multicentre study group in South-East S. short-term recovery after subtotal and total abdominal hysterectomy—a randomised clinical trial. BJOG. 2010;117(4):469–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    American College of O, Gynecology. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 390, December 2007. Ethical decision making in obstetrics and gynecology. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110(6):1479–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hilton P, Dolan LM. Pathophysiology of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG. 2004;111(Suppl 1):5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gabriel Francisco Aleixo
    • 1
  • Marcelo C. M. Fonseca
    • 2
  • Maria Augusta Tezelli Bortolini
    • 2
    Email author
  • Luiz Gustavo O. Brito
    • 3
  • Rodrigo A. Castro
    • 2
  1. 1.Universidade do Oeste Paulista, UNOESTE, Presidente PrudenteSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Sector of Urogynecology, Department of GynecologyFederal University of São Paulo, UNIFESPSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics & GynecologyUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations