Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 11, pp 1887–1893 | Cite as

Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques

  • Karen Ruben HusbyEmail author
  • Michael Due Larsen
  • Gunnar Lose
  • Niels Klarskov
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Uterine prolapse is a common diagnosis. Today no consensus exists on which operation technique is ideal to treat apical prolapse. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with suspension of the vaginal cuff is the most frequently used. The popularity of uterus-preserving techniques is increasing. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of vaginal native tissue operations to treat primary apical prolapse, evaluated on risk of relapse surgery.

Methods

Data were obtained from the Danish National Patient Registry (NPR), which contains all operations performed in Denmark. Patients operated on for primary apical prolapse in Denmark 2010–2016 were included and followed until 2017. Clinical data were obtained from the Danish Urogynecological Database. Patients who were previously hysterectomized or operated on for prolapse in the apical compartment were excluded. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis and adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, preoperative prolapse stage and previous POP operations.

Results

In total, 7247 operations were included. The hazard ratio (HR) for relapse operation in the apical compartment was significantly higher after sacrospinous hysteropexy (SH) compared with the Manchester-Fothergill procedure (MP) [40.2 confidence interval (CI) 21.6–74.7] and VH (8.5 CI: 6.0–12.1). Likewise, the HR was higher in the anterior compartment after SH compared with MP (4.3 CI: 2.9–6.4) and VH (2.8 CI: 2.0–4.0). No convincing difference was found in the posterior compartment. The 5-year reoperation rates were 30%, 7% and 11% after SH, MP, and VH, respectively.

Conclusions

Sacrospinous hysteropexy has exceedingly high numbers of reoperations due to prolapse recurrence.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) Apical prolapse Manchester-Fothergill procedure Vaginal hysterectomy Sacrospinous hysteropexy 

Abbreviations

ASA

The American Society of Anesthesiologists

BMI

Body mass index

DugaBase

The Danish Urogynecological Database

MP

Manchester-Fothergill procedure

SH

Sacrospinous hysteropexy

UI

Urinary incontinence

VH

Vaginal hysterectomy

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

KR Husby, MD Larsen and G Lose have no disclosures. N Klarskov has received funding from Astellas Pharma and Contura outside the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Løwenstein E, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2014;26:49–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2413-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in the US women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:1278–83.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c2ce96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010: CD004014.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub4.
  4. 4.
    Schmidt M, Schmidt SAJ, Sandegaard JL, et al. The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol. 2015;7:449.  https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S91125.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hansen UD, Gradel KO, Larsen MD. Danish Urogynaecological database. Clin Epidemiol. 2016:709–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guldberg R, Brostrøm S, Hansen JK, et al. The Danish urogynaecological database: establishment, completeness and validity. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013;24:983–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1968-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Toft H. The Danish civil registration system as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2014:541–9.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Danish Urogynecological database, available online at: http://www.dugabase.dk/. Accessed December 12, 2017.
  9. 9.
    Sundararajan V, Henderson T, Perry C, et al. New ICD-10 version of the Charlson comorbidity index predicted in-hospital mortality. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:1288–94.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.03.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Husby KR, Lose G, Klarskov N. Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3852-7.
  11. 11.
    Tolstrup CK, Husby KR, Lose G, et al. The Manchester-fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:431–40.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3519-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tolstrup CK, Lose G, Klarskov N. The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J. 2016 1–8 .  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3100-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Oliveira SA, Fonseca MCM, Bortolini MAT, et al. Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 1617–1630 .  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3433-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dietz V, Van Der Vaart CH, Van Der Graaf Y, et al. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:209–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1014-7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Meriwether K V, Balk EM, Antosh DD, et al. Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Int Urogynecol J. 2019.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyHerlev and Gentofte University HospitalHerlevDenmark
  2. 2.University of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Center for Clinical EpidemiologyOdense University HospitalOdenseDenmark
  4. 4.Research Unit of Clinical EpidemiologyUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark

Personalised recommendations