Hysteropexy: an Option for the Repair of Pelvic Organ Prolapse
- 577 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Women have an estimated 12.6% lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in the USA (Wu et al. in Obstet Gynecol 123(6): 1201–6, 2014). Surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse most commonly includes hysterectomy and vaginal vault suspension; however, the value of concomitant hysterectomy is uncertain, and there appears to be growing interest in uterine conservation. Multiple procedures have evolved using a variety of approaches. The aim of this paper is to review uterine sparing (hysteropexy) prolapse repair techniques and outcomes.
Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have shown comparable success rates for apical compartment support with sacrospinous hysteropexy as compared to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, with shorter hospitalization and quicker return to work. (Detollenaere et al. in BMJ 351: h3717, 2015); (Dietz et al. in Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21(2): 209–16, 2010). Available data suggest vaginal mesh hysteropexy is as effective as vaginal mesh with hysterectomy, with lower rates of mesh exposure. (Maher et al., 2017) To date, no RCTs have been published comparing sacral hysteropexy to hysterectomy with sacral colpopexy. Overall, there is a higher reoperation rate for sacral hysteropexy and a higher mesh exposure rate for hysterectomy with sacral colpopexy. (Maher et al., 2017) No RCTs have been published comparing hysteropexy surgical approaches.
Although hysteropexy data is expanding, there is a need for more information regarding long-term surgical durability, appropriate patient selection, and whether one approach is superior to another.
KeywordsSacral hysteropexy Sacral colpopexy Hysteropexy Sacrospinous hysteropexy
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Sarah Bradley, Robert E. Gutman, and Lee A. Richter each declare no potential conflicts of interest.
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.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 2.Ridgeway BM, Frick AC. Chapter 26: uterine conservation for the surgical treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. In: Walters MD, Karram M, editors. Urogynecology and reconstructive pelvic surgery. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2014. p. 383–99.Google Scholar
- 9.Parker WH, Feskanich D, Broder MS, Chang E, Shoupe D, Farquhar CM, et al. Long-term mortality associated with oophorectomy compared with ovarian conservation in the nurses’ health study. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):709–16. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182864350.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Lin TY, Su TH, Wang YL, Lee MY, Hsieh CH, Wang KG, et al. Risk factors for failure of transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension in the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. J Formos Med Assoc = Taiwanyizhi. 2005;104(4):249–53.Google Scholar
- 13.•• Maher C, et al. Surgical Treatment of Uterovaginal Prolapse, IV. Committee 15: Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery. Incontinence, 6th ed 2017, pages 1874–1886. Editors Abrams, P, Cardoza, L, et al. International Continence Society. Summary of all available paper for all modalities of hysteropexy Tables and references of all prior studies along with critical findings Critical evaluation of the literature with recommendations for best practice based on level of evidence available at the end of the summary.Google Scholar
- 15.Bochenska K, Leader-Cramer A, Mueller M, et al. Perioperative complications following colpocleisis with and without concomitant vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1671–5.Google Scholar
- 16.Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 17.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 Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2010;21(2):209–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1014-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.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(5):350–5; discussion 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-003-1084-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Hefni MA, El-Toukhy TA. Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal and vault prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127(2):257–63.Google Scholar
- 24.Morgan DM, Rogers MAM, Huebner M, Wei JT, DeLancey JO. Heterogeneity in anatomic outcome of sacrospinous ligament fixation for prolapse: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(6):1424–33. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000264066.89094.21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Diwan ARC, 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(1):79–83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1346-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Maher C, Schmid C, Baessler K, Feiner B. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(4):CD004014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5.
- 30.Haya N, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, de Tayrac R, Dietz V, Guldberg R, et al. Prolapse and continence surgery in countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in 2012. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):755 e1–e27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Neuman M, Lavy Y. Conservation of the prolapsed uterus is a valid option: medium term results of a prospective comparative study with the posterior intravaginal slingoplasty operation. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18(8):889–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-006-0262-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.• Gutman RE, Rardin CR, Sokol ER, Matthews C, Park AJ, Iglesia CB, et al. Vaginal and laparoscopic mesh hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse: a parallel cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(1):38.e1–11. Well-designed cohort study and the only prospective study comparing efficacy and adverse effects of two hysteropexy approaches outcomes at 12 months of subjective, objective, and composite criteria. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar