Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-05-2012 | Original Article

Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ?

Authors: Lauri J. Romanzi, Renuka Tyagi

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 5/2012

Abstract

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.

Baden WF, Walker TA, Lindsey JH (1968) The vaginal profile. Tex Med 64(5):56–58PubMed

Romanzi LJ, Polaneczky M, Glazer HI (1999) Simple test of pelvic muscle contraction during pelvic examination: correlation to surface electromyography. Neurourol Urodyn 18(6):603–612PubMedCrossRef

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2010) AHRQ Homepage. http://www.ahrq.gov. Accessed 12 Jan 2012

Keshavarz H, Hillis SD, Kieke BA, Marchbanks PA. (2002) Hysterectomy surveillance—United States, 1994–1999. MMWR Surveillance Summaries July 12, 2002/51(ss05);1–8 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5105a1.htm

Lepine LA, Hillis SD, Marchbanks PA, Koonin LM, Morrow B, Kieke BA, Wilcox LS. (1999) Hysterectomy surveillance—United States, 1980–1993. MMWR Surveillance Summaries August 08, 1997/46(SS-4);1–15. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00048898.htm#top

Richardson DA, Scotti RJ, Ostergard DR (1989) Surgical management of uterine prolapse in young women. J Reprod Med 34(6):388–392PubMed

Ridgeway B, Frick AC, Walter MD (2008) Hysteropexy. A review. Minerva Ginecol 60(6):509–528PubMed

Park AJ, Paraiso MF (2008) Surgical management of uterine prolapse. Minerva Ginecol 60(6):493–507PubMed

Shull BL, Bachofen C, Coates KW, Kuehl TJ (2000) A transvaginal approach to repair of apical and other associated sites of pelvic organ prolapse with uterosacral ligaments. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183(6):1365–1373PubMedCrossRef

10.

Diwan A, Rardin CR, Strohsnitter WC, Weld A, Rosenblatt P, Kohli N (2006) Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament uterine suspension compared with vaginal hysterectomy with vaginal vault suspension for uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 17(1):79–83PubMedCrossRef

11.

De Boer T, Milani AL, Kluivers KV, Withagen MIJ, Vierhout ME (2009) The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication. Int Urogynecol J 20:1313–1319CrossRef

12.

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

13.

Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Schraffordt Koops SE (2010) One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21(2):209–216CrossRef

14.

Beck DE, Allen NL (2010) Rectocele Clin Colon Rectal Surg 23(2):90–98CrossRef

15.

Rogalski MJ, Kellogg-Spadt S, Hoffmann AR, Fariello JY, Whitmore KE (2010) Retrospective chart review of vaginal diazepam suppository use in high-tone pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21(7):895–899PubMedCrossRef

16.

Hove MS, Pool-Goudzwaard A, Eijkemans M, Steegers-Theunissen R, Burger C, Vierhout M (2010) Pelvic floor muscle function in a general population of women with and without pelvic organ prolapse. In Urogynecol J 21(3):311–319CrossRef

17.

Braekken IU, Majida M, Ellstrom Engh M, Bo K (2009) Pelvic floor function is independently associated with pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG 116(13):1706–1714PubMedCrossRef

18.

Zimmern P, Kobashi K, Lemack G (2010) Outcome measure for stress urinary incontinence treatment (OMIT): results of two society of urodynamics and female urology (SUFU) surveys. Neurourol Urodyn 29((5):715–718CrossRef

Title: Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ?
Authors: Lauri J. Romanzi
Renuka Tyagi
Publication date: 01-05-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1635-5

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ?

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2012

Pelvic pain in urogynecology. Part II: treatment options in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms

Stress urinary incontinence in climacteric women in a northeastern Brazilian municipality: a household survey

Is antibiotic prophylaxis necessary for midurethral sling procedures? A series of 174 cases without preoperative antibiotics

Pregnancy after laparoscopic sacral colpopexy: a case report

Does a ring pessary in situ influence the pelvic floor muscle function of women with pelvic organ prolapse when tested in supine?

Long-term outcomes after native tissue vs. biological graft-augmented repair in the posterior compartment