01-05-2012 | Original Article
Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ?
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 5/2012
Login to get accessAbstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The aim of this study is to assess the impact of hysterectomy on durability of uterine prolapse repair by comparing hysterectomy/uterosacral cuff suspension (VH) to a new vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy (USH).
Methods
A retrospective chart review of uterine prolapse patients after USH or VH with concomitant procedures as indicated was conducted, analyzing Baden–Walker grading of apex, anterior, and posterior compartments (Kaplan–Meier analysis) Baden et al. (Tex Med 64(5):56-58, 1968).
Results
A total of 200 charts met criteria. USH women weighed less, were younger, and more constipated with larger rectoceles. Levator parameters did not differ Romanzi et al. (Neurourol Urodyn 18(6):603-612, 1999). Baden–Walker data were entered at recurrence or minimum of 6 months (2.4 months–10 years; median, 1.5 years). All-apex durability was 96.4%, with no difference between hysteropexy and cuff suspension (96.0% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.90), cystocele (86.8% vs. 93.8%, p = 0.31), or rectocele (97.8% vs. 100%, p = 0.16) at 2 years.
Conclusion
In uterine prolapse patients, technically similar uterosacral hysteropexy durability did not differ from hysterectomy-based cuff suspension nor between cohorts for cystocele or rectocele.