Top

BMC Women's Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Hysterectomy | Research article

Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study)

Authors: Daniel Gagyor, Vladimir Kalis, Martin Smazinka, Zdenek Rusavy, Radovan Pilka, Khaled M. Ismail

Published in: BMC Women's Health | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH + LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH + LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH + LSC or TLH + LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic.

Results

In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH + LSC n = 208 and TLH + LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p = 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006).

Conclusion

LSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.

Available only for authorised users

Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:795–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.602.CrossRefPubMed

Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:1201–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Obinata D, Yamaguchi K, Ito A, Murata Y, Ashikari D, Igarashi T, et al. Lower urinary tract symptoms in female patients with pelvic organ prolapse: efficacy of pelvic floor reconstruction. Int J Urol. 2014;21:301–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12281.CrossRefPubMed

Handa VL, Cundiff G, Chang HH, Helzlsouer KJ. Female sexual function and pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111:1045–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31816bbe85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Slieker-ten Hove MCP, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJC, Steegers-Theunissen RPM, Burger CW, Vierhout ME. The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:1037–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0902-1.CrossRef

Adjoussou SA, Bohoussou E, Bastide S, Letouzey V, Fatton B, de Tayrac R. Prévalence des troubles fonctionnels et associations anatomo-fonctionnelles chez les femmes présentant un prolapsus génital. Progrès en Urol. 2014;24:511–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.purol.2013.11.015.CrossRef

Lucassen EA, la Chapelle CF, Krouwel E, Groeneveld M. Renal failure caused by severe pelvic organ prolapse. BMJ Case Rep. 2019;12:e229318. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2019-229318.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Miyagi A, Inaguma Y, Tokoyoda T, Nakajima T, Sezaki R, Matsukawa T. A case of renal dysfunction caused by pelvic organ prolapse. CEN Case Rep. 2017;6:125–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13730-017-0257-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, Redden DT, Burgio KL, Richter HE, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U. S. Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123:141–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000057.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Martan A, Svabík K, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Pavlikova M. Correlation between stress urinary incontinence or urgency and anterior compartment defect before and after surgical treatment. Ces Gynekol. 2010;75:118–25.

11.

Digesu GA, Chaliha C, Salvatore S, Hutchings A, Khullar V. The relationship of vaginal prolapse severity tosymptoms and quality of life. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112:971–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00568.x.CrossRef

12.

Collins SA, O’Sullivan DM, Lasala CA. Correlation of POP-Q posterior compartment measures with defecatory dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:743–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1643-5.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Barber MD, Maher C. Apical prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1815–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Maher CM, Feiner B, Baessler K, Glazener CMA. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women: the updated summary version Cochrane review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:1445–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1542-9.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Davidson ERW, Casas-Puig V, Paraiso MFR, Ridgeway B, Ferrando CA. Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and patient-centered outcomes following minimally invasive abdominal uterosacral ligament and mesh-augmented sacrohysteropexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000710.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Szymczak P, Grzybowska ME, Wydra DG. Comparison of laparoscopic techniques for apical organ prolapse repair—A systematic review of the literature. Neurourol Urodyn. 2019;38:2031–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24115.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Committee Opinion No. 578. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122:1134–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000437384.88715.03.

18.

Urdzík P, Kalis V, Blaganje M, Rusavy Z, Smazinka M, Havir M, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey). BMC Womens Health. 2020;20:241. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-01105-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:470.e1-470.e6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003.CrossRef

20.

Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MFR, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19:103–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31827d8667.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Cardenas-Trowers O, Stewart JR, Meriwether KV, Francis SL, Gupta A. Perioperative outcomes of minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy based on route of concurrent hysterectomy: a secondary analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2020;27:953–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2019.08.010.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Davidson ERW, Thomas TN, Lampert EJ, Paraiso MFR, Ferrando CA. Route of hysterectomy during minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy does not affect postoperative outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:649–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3790-4.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Gracia M, Perelló M, Bataller E, Espuña M, Parellada M, Genís D, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:654–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22641.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Saliba E, Nisolle M, Tchente C, De Landsheere L. Doit-on réaliser systématiquement une hystérectomie subtotale dans le cadre d’une promontofixation cœlioscopique ? Gynécologie Obs Fertil Sénologie. 2019;47:549–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2019.04.007.CrossRef

25.

Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:93–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2775-9.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04260-1.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:165–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. Erratum to: An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:655–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3003-y.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Krell RW, Girotti ME, Dimick JB. Extended length of stay after surgery. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:815. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2014.629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:1388–95. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.118659.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien P-A. Classification of surgical complications. Ann Surg. 2004;240:205–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.sla.0000133083.54934.ae.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Smazinka M, Kalis V, Havir M, Havelkova L, Ismail KM, Rusavy Z. Obesity and its long-term impact on sacrocolpopexy key outcomes (OBELISK). Int Urogynecol J. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04076-8.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Kalis V, Smazinka M, Rusavy Z, Blaganje M, Havir M, Havelkova L, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as the mainstay management for significant apical pelvic organ prolapse (LAP) study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;244:60–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.049.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:523–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-1069-5.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Haylen BT, Maher C, Deprest J. IUGA/ICS terminology and classification of complications of prosthesis and graft insertion–rereading will revalidate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208:e15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.08.004.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Dietz HP, Haylen BT, Broome J. Ultrasound in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18:511–4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00494.x.CrossRefPubMed

37.

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;216:381.e1-38.e11.CrossRef

38.

Costantini E, Brubaker L, Cervigni M, Matthews CA, O’Reilly BA, Rizk D, et al. Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence-based review and recommendations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:60–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.07.503.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Stepanian AA, Miklos JR, Moore RD, Mattox TF. Risk of Mesh extrusion and other mesh-related complications after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with or without concurrent laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy: experience of 402 patients. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:188–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2007.11.006.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Tan-Kim J, Menefee SA, Luber KM, Nager CW, Lukacz ES. Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:205–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1265-3.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Kalis V, Rusavy Z, Ismail KM. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy: the Pilsner modification. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:1277–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04150-1.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study)
Authors: Daniel Gagyor
Vladimir Kalis
Martin Smazinka
Zdenek Rusavy
Radovan Pilka
Khaled M. Ismail
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Hysterectomy
Published in: BMC Women's Health / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6874
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01208-5

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study)

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Evaluation and management of obstetric genital fistulas treated at a pelvic floor centre in Germany

Factors influencing mothers’ decisions regarding obstetrical care in Western Kenya: a mixed-methods study

Anastrozole and levonorgrestrel-releasing intrauterine device in the treatment of endometriosis: a randomized clinical trial

Relugolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist, in women with endometriosis-associated pain: phase 2 safety and efficacy 24-week results

Alleviating psychological distress associated with a positive cervical cancer screening result: a randomized control trial

Economic empowerment and intimate partner violence: a secondary data analysis of the cross-sectional Demographic Health Surveys in Sub-Saharan Africa