Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 9/2011

01-09-2011 | Original Article

A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent

Authors: Susanne D. Thys, Anne- Lotte Coolen, Ingrid R. Martens, Herman P. Oosterbaan, Jan- Paul W. R. Roovers, Ben- Willem Mol, Marlies Y. Bongers

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 9/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The objective of this study was to compare the Manchester Fothergill (MF) procedure with vaginal hysterectomy (VH) as surgical treatment of uterine descent.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent MF were matched for prolapse grade, age and parity to consecutive patients treated with VH. Evaluated outcomes included functional outcome, morbidity, recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and sexual function. Follow-up was performed using validated questionnaires.

Results

We included 196 patients (98 patients per group). The response rate after a follow-up of 4–9 years was 80%. We found no differences in functional outcome and recurrence rates of POP between groups. Blood loss was significantly less and operating time was significantly shorter in the MF group. However, incomplete emptying of the bladder was more common in the MF group.

Conclusions

The MF procedure is equally effective to the VH and should be considered as a surgical option that allows preservation of the uterus.
Literature
1.
Hudson CN (1988) Female genital prolapse and pelvic floor deficiency. Am J Colorectal Dis 3:181–185CrossRef
2.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506PubMedCrossRef
3.
van Brummen HJ, van de Pol G, Aalders CI, Heintz AP, van der Vaart CH (2003) Sacrospinous hysteropexy compared to vaginal hysterectomy as primary surgical treatment for a descensus uteri: effects on urinary symptoms. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 14(5):350–355PubMedCrossRef
4.
5.
Ranney B (1981) Enterocele, vaginal prolapse, pelvic hernia: recognition and treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 140:53–57PubMed
6.
Diwan A, Rardin CR, Kohli N (2004) Uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15(4):286–292PubMed
7.
Roovers JP, van der Bom JG, van der Vaart CH, Schagen van Leeuwen JH, Scholten PC, Heintz AP (2005) A randomized comparison of post-operative pain, quality of life, and physical performance during the first six weeks after abdominal or vaginal surgical correction of descensus uteri. Neurol Urodyn 24:334–340CrossRef
8.
Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Scraffordt Koops SE (2010) One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J 21:209–216PubMedCrossRef
9.
Ayhan A, Esin S, Guven S, Salman C, Ozyuncu O (2006) The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse. Int J Obstet Gynecol 92:228–233CrossRef
10.
Donald A (1902) The operative treatment of prolapse of the uterus and vagina. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp 1:312CrossRef
11.
Thomas AG, Brodman ML, Dottino PR, Bodian C, Friedman F, Bogursky E (1995) Manchester procedure vs. vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse. A comparison. J Reprod Med 40:299–304PubMed
12.
Kalagirou D, Antoniou G, Karakitsos P, Kalogirou O (1996) Comparison of surgical and postoperative complications of VH and Manchester procedure. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 17:278–280
13.
de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MIJ, Vierhout ME (2009) The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament placation (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament placation. Int Urogynecol J 20:1313–1319CrossRef
14.
Baden WF, Walker TA (1972) Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15(4):1048–1054PubMedCrossRef
15.
Van der Vaart CH, De Leeuw JP, Roovers JP, Heintz AP (2003) Measuring health related quality of life in women with urogenital dysfunction: the urogenital distress inventory and incontinence impact questionnaire revisited. Neurourol Urodyn 22:97–104PubMedCrossRef
16.
Van Brummen HJ, Bruinse HW, van de Pol G, Heintz AP, van der Vaart CH (2006) Defecatory symptoms during and after the first pregnancy: prevalences and associated factors. Int Urogynecol J 17:224–230CrossRef
17.
Hakvoort RA, Dijkgraaf MG, Burger MP, Emanuel MH, Roovers JP (2009) Predicting short-term urinary retention after vaginal prolapse surgery. Neurourol Urodyn 28(3):225–228PubMedCrossRef
18.
Niël-Weise BS, van den PJ Broek (2005) Urinary catheter policies for short-term bladder drainage in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 20(3):CD004203
19.
Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M (2005) Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur Urol 48(4):642–649PubMedCrossRef
20.
Skiadas CC, Goldstein DP, Laufer MR (2006) The Manchester-Fothergill procedure as a fertility sparing alternative for pelvic organ prolapse in young women. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 19(2):89–93PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent
Authors
Susanne D. Thys
Anne- Lotte Coolen
Ingrid R. Martens
Herman P. Oosterbaan
Jan- Paul W. R. Roovers
Ben- Willem Mol
Marlies Y. Bongers
Publication date
01-09-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 9/2011
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1422-3

Other articles of this Issue 9/2011

International Urogynecology Journal 9/2011 Go to the issue

Original Article

Between hope and fear: patient’s expectations prior to pelvic organ prolapse surgery

Case Report

Symptomatic vaginal enterocele associated with malfunctioning ventriculoperitoneal shunt and cerebrospinal ascites

Original Article

Is cesarean section a real panacea to prevent pelvic organ disorders?

Original Article

Pelvic floor dysfunction 6 years post-anal sphincter tear at the time of vaginal delivery

Editorial

Familial amyloidotic polyneuropathy (Portuguese type variant I) and female pelvic floor dysfunction: a tribute to Magellan

Letter to the Editor

Misconception of the Valsalva maneuver