Advertisement

Impact of vertical versus horizontal vaginal cuff closure on vaginal length following hysterectomy: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

  • Vasilios PergialiotisEmail author
  • Georgios Daskalakis
  • Nikolaos Thomakos
  • Dimitrios Haidopoulos
  • Dimitrios Loutradis
  • Alexandros Rodolakis
Review Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Posthysterectomy vaginal length has been previously associated with postoperative sexual dysfunction, but evidence for this in the literature is controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate whether vertical or horizontal closure of the vaginal cuff has a direct effect on posthysterectomy vaginal length and on postoperative sexual dysfunction.

Methods

The study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched Medline, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar databases.

Results

Overall, five randomized trials were included in this meta-analysis with 223 patients. The results suggest that horizontal closure of the vaginal cuff results in a shorter vaginal length compared with vertical closure [mean difference (MD) −0.77 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI) −1.12 to −0.43]. Mean vaginal length significantly decreased when the horizontal method was used (MD −0.61 cm, 95% CI −0.97 to −0.24). The subgroup analysis revealed that vertical closure was associated with longer vaginal length only in cases treated with vaginal hysterectomy. Trial sequential analysis revealed that our meta-analysis had adequate power to support these results. Postoperative sexual function was evaluated in only one study; no differences were observed.

Conclusions

Findings of our meta-analysis suggest that horizontal closure of the vaginal vault results in shorter vaginal length in vaginal hysterectomies; thus, we suggest that this technique be avoided. Data concerning quality of life of patients and specifically sexual dysfunction remain extremely limited and should be studied in future trials.

Keywords

Horizontal Vertical Vaginal cuff Hysterectomy Dyspareunia Meta-analysis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This systematic review and meta-analysis are based on previously published aggregated data.

Institutional review board approval

An IRB approval was not needed because this study used previously published aggregated data.

Informed consent

Formal consent is not required for this type of study.

Supplementary material

192_2019_3881_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (616 kb)
ESM 1 (JPG 616 kb)
192_2019_3881_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (734 kb)
ESM 2 (JPG 734 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wright JD, Herzog TJ, Tsui J, Ananth CV, Lewin SN, Lu Y-S, et al. Nationwide trends in the performance of inpatient hysterectomy in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(2 0 1):233–41.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318299a6cf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lonnée-Hoffmann R, Pinas I. Effects of hysterectomy on sexual function. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2014;6(4):244–51.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-014-0029-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pakbaz M, Mogren I, Lofgren M. Outcomes of vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse: a population-based, retrospective, cross-sectional study of patient perceptions of results including sexual activity, urinary symptoms, and provided care. BMC Womens Health. 2009;9:9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6874-9-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Zanten F, Brem C, Lenters E, Broeders I, Schraffordt Koops SE. Sexual function after robot-assisted prolapse surgery: a prospective study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):905–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3645-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Topatan S, Yildiz H. Symptoms experienced by women who enter into natural and surgical menopause and their relation to sexual functions. Health Care Women Int. 2012;33(6):525–39.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2011.646374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lammerink EA, de Bock GH, Pras E, Reyners AK, Mourits MJ. Sexual functioning of cervical cancer survivors: a review with a female perspective. Maturitas. 2012;72(4):296–304.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2012.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ye S, Yang J, Cao D, Zhu L, Lang J, Shen K. Quality of life and sexual function of cervical cancer patients following radical hysterectomy and vaginal extension. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2014;49(8):609–15.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bastu E, Yasa C, Dural O, Ozgor BY, Yilmaz G, Gungor Ugurlucan F, et al. Comparison of 2 methods of vaginal cuff closure at laparoscopic hysterectomy and their effect on female sexual function and vaginal length: a randomized clinical study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(6):986–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.07.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tan JS, Lukacz ES, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Albo ME, Nager CW. Determinants of vaginal length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1846–50.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.06.063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De La Cruz JF, Myers EM, Geller EJ. Vaginal versus robotic hysterectomy and concomitant pelvic support surgery: a comparison of postoperative vaginal length and sexual function. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(6):1010–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.04.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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 health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17(1):1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DerSimonian R, Kacker R. Random-effects model for meta-analysis of clinical trials: an update. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(2):105–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2006.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22(4):719–48.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Higgins J, Green S. 9.5.2 Identifying and measuring heterogeneity. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2011.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ. 2007;176(8):1091–6.  https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.060410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vassallo BJ, Culpepper C, Segal JL, Moen MD, Noone MB. A randomized trial comparing methods of vaginal cuff closure at vaginal hysterectomy and the effect on vaginal length. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1805–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.07.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cavkaytar S, Kokanali MK, Topcu HO, Aksakal OS, Doganay M. Effects of horizontal vs vertical vaginal cuff closure techniques on vagina length after vaginal hysterectomy: a prospective randomized study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21(5):884–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2014.03.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tower AM, Clark Donat L, Azodi M, Silasi DA. The effect of vertical versus horizontal vaginal cuff closure on vaginal length after laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2015;22(6s):S77.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2015.08.205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ucar MG, Ilhan TT, Sanlikan F, Celik C. Sexual functioning before and after vaginal hysterectomy to treat pelvic organ prolapse and the effects of vaginal cuff closure techniques: a prospective randomised study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;206:1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.08.041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hill AM, Davis KM, Clark-Donat L, Hammons LM, Azodi M, Silasi DA. The effect of vertical versus horizontal vaginal cuff closure on vaginal length after laparoscopic hysterectomy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2017;24(1):108–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2016.09.015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lev-Sagie A. Vulvar and vaginal atrophy: physiology, clinical presentation, and treatment considerations. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;58(3):476–91.  https://doi.org/10.1097/grf.0000000000000126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Archer DF. Dehydroepiandrosterone intra vaginal administration for the management of postmenopausal vulvovaginal atrophy. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2015;145:139–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2014.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Edwards D, Panay N. Treating vulvovaginal atrophy/genitourinary syndrome of menopause: how important is vaginal lubricant and moisturizer composition? Climacteric. 2016;19(2):151–61.  https://doi.org/10.3109/13697137.2015.1124259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salvatore S, Athanasiou S, Candiani M. The use of pulsed CO2 lasers for the treatment of vulvovaginal atrophy. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2015;27(6):504–8.  https://doi.org/10.1097/gco.0000000000000230.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wurz GT, Kao CJ, DeGregorio MW. Safety and efficacy of ospemifene for the treatment of dyspareunia associated with vulvar and vaginal atrophy due to menopause. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:1939–50.  https://doi.org/10.2147/cia.s73753.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abdelmonem AM. Vaginal length and incidence of dyspareunia after total abdominal versus vaginal hysterectomy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;151(2):190–2.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2010.03.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Polat M, Kahramanoglu I, Senol T, Senturk B, Ozkaya E, Karateke A. Comparison of the effect of laparoscopic and abdominal hysterectomy on lower urinary tract function, vaginal length, and dyspareunia: a randomized clinical trial. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A. 2016;26(2):116–21.  https://doi.org/10.1089/lap.2015.0437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    ACOG Committee Opinion No. 444: choosing the route of hysterectomy for benign disease. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(5):1156-1158.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c33c72.

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Experimental Surgery and Surgical Research N.S ChristeasNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensHalandriGreece
  2. 2.1st Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Alexandra HospitalNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations