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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Urology Reports
Published in: Current Urology Reports 5/2013

01-10-2013 | Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Voiding Dysfunction (G Badlani and H Goldman, Section Editors)

Management Options for Women with Uterine Prolapse Interested in Uterine Preservation

Authors: Nathan Kow, Howard B. Goldman, Beri Ridgeway

Published in: Current Urology Reports | Issue 5/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

A variety of nonsurgical and surgical treatment options exist for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. While nonsurgical management is often selected as first-line treatment, many women eventually elect to undergo surgical management. Traditionally, prolapse repair often includes concomitant hysterectomy; however, women increasingly desire uterine preservation for a myriad of reasons. Multiple surgical procedures have been described to correct apical prolapse while preserving the uterus. Many studies suggest similar anatomic and functional outcomes compared to prolapse procedures with concomitant hysterectomy. Potential benefits include decreased operative time and avoidance of hysterectomy-specific complications, although there are several unique issues to consider if the uterus is retained. Surgeons must provide adequate counseling and preoperative evaluation before proceeding with uterine preservation.
Literature
1.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ pro- lapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, Meikle S, Schaffer J, Spino C, et al. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008;300(11):1311–6.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Smith FJ, Holman CDJ, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Hagen S, Stark D. Conservation prevention and management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011, Dec;7;(12).
6.
Clemons JL, Aguilar VC, Tillinghast TA, Jackson ND, Myers DL. Patient satisfaction and changes in prolapse and urinary symptoms in women who were fitted success- fully with a pessary for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:1025–9.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ridgeway B, Frick AC, Walter MD. Hysteropexy: A review. Minerva Ginecol. 2008;60:509–28.PubMed
8.
Watkins TJ. The treatment of cystocele and uterine prolapse after the menopause. Am Gynaec Obst J. 1899;15:403–48.
9.
Thomas AG, Brodman ML, Dottino PR, Bodian C, Friedman Jr F, Bogursky E. Manchester procedure vs. vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse. A comparison. J Reprod Med. 1995;40:299–304.PubMed
10.
Conger GT, Keettel WC. The Manchester- Fothergill operation, its place in gynecology; a review of 960 cases at University Hospitals, Iowa City, Iowa. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1958;76:634–40.PubMed
11.
Tipton RH, Atkin PF. Uterine disease after the Manchester repair operation. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1970;77:852–3.PubMedCrossRef
12.
de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MI, Vierhout ME. 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 Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20:1313–9.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Williams BF. Surgical treatment for uterine prolapse in young women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1966;95:967–71.PubMed
14.
Richardson DA, Scotti RJ, Ostegard DR. Surgical management of uterine prolapse in young women. J Repord Med. 1989;34:388–92.
15.
Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH. Successful pregnancies and vaginal deliveries after sacrospinous uterosacral fixation in five of nineteen patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168:1778–83.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Maher CF, Cary MP, Slack MC, Murray CJ, Milligan M, Schluter P. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12:381–4.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hefni M, el-Toukhy T, Bhaumik J, Katsimanis E. Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:645–50.PubMedCrossRef
18.
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;14:350–5.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Jeng CJ, Yang YC, Tzeng CR, Shen J, Wang LR. Sexual functional after vaginal hysterectomuy or transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension for uterine prolapse: a comparison. J Reprod Med. 2005;50:669–74.PubMed
20.
Dietz V, de Jong J, Hauisman M, Schraffordt Koops S, Jeingt P, van der Vaart J. The effeciveness of the sacropspinous solpopexy for uterovagina prolapse. Int Urologyncol J Pelvic Floor. 2007;18:1271–6.CrossRef
21.
Dietz V, Huisman M, de Jong JM, Heintz PM, van der Vaart CH. Functional outcome after sacrospinous hystereopexy for uterine descensus. Int J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19:747–2.CrossRef
22.
• 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. 2010;21:209–16. This nonblinded multicentered randomized trial compares patients sacrospinous hysteropexy with vaginal hysterectomy. The authors showed that there were no differences in functional outcomes and quality of life. Additionally, sacrospinous hysteropexy was associated with earlier recovery time but more recurrent apical prolapses.PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Feiner B, Gietelink L, Maher C. Anterior vaginal mesh sacrospinous hysteropexy and posterior fascial plication for anterior compartment dominated uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:203–8.PubMedCrossRef
25.
McDermott CD, Terry CL, Woodman PJ, Hale DS. Surgical outcomes following total Prolift: Colpopexy versus hysteropexy. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;51(1):61–6.PubMedCrossRef
26.
• Vu MK, Letko J, Jirschele K, Gafni-Kane A, Nguyen A, Du H, et al. Minimal mesh repair for apical and anterior prolapse: initial anatomical and subjective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(12):1753–61. This study examines the use of the Uphold mesh system performed with and without hysterectomy and provides both anatomic and subjective outcomes.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Stoesser FG. Construvtyion of a sacrocervical ligament for uterine suspension. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1955;101:638–41.PubMed
28.
Nesbitt Jr RE. Uterine preservation in the surgical management of genuine stress urinary incontinence associated with uterovaginal prolapse. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1989;168:143–7.PubMed
29.
Joshi VM. A new technique of uterine suspension to pectineal ligaments in the management of uterovaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81:790–3.PubMed
30.
Leron E, Stanton SL. Sacrohysteropexy with synthetic mesh for the management of uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG. 2001;108:143–7.
31.
Barranger E, Fritel X, Pigne A. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: long-term follow-up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1245–50.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M. Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur Urol. 2005;48:642–9.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Demirci F, Ozdemir I, Somunkiran A, Doyran GD, Alhan A, Gul B. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: results of 20 cases. J Reprod Med. 2006;51:539–43.PubMed
34.
Cvach K, Geoffrion R, Cundiff GW. Abdominal sacral hysteropexy: A pilot study comparing sacral hysteropexy to sacral colpopexy with hysterectomy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18:286–90.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Maher CF, Carey MP, Murray CJ. Laparoscopic suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:1010–4.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Diwan A, Rardin CR, 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;17:378–81.CrossRef
37.
Uccella S, Ghezzi F, Bergamini V, Serati M, Cromi A, Franchi M, et al. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligaments plicaiton for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2007;276:225–9.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Bedford ND, Seman EI, O’Shea RT, Keirse MJ. Effect of uterine preservation on outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):172–7.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Krause HG, Goh JT, Sloane K, Higgs P, Carey MP. Laparoscopic sacral suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2006;17:378–81.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Rosenblatt PL, Chelmow D, Ferzandi TR. Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of uterine prolapse: a retrospective case series report. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15:268–72.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Price N, Slack A, Jackson SR. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG. 2010;117:62–8.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Gimbel H, Zobbe V, Andersen BM, Filtenborg T, Gluud C, Tabor A. Randomised controlled trial of total compared with subtotal hysterectomy with one-year follow up results. BJOG. 2003;110:1088–98.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Moorman PG, Myers ER, Schildkraut JM, Iversen ES, Wang F, Warren N. Effect of hysterectomy with ovarian preservation on ovarian function. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118(6):1271–9.PubMedCrossRef
44.
• Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9. This survey study showed that women prefer to retain their uterus at the time of surgery in the absence of a substantial benefit to hysterectomy.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Lewis CM, Culligan P. Sacrohysteropexy followed by successful pregnancy and eventual reoperation for prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:957–9.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Storm HH, Clemmensen IH, Manders T, Brinton LA. Supravaginal uterine amputation in Denmark 1978–1988 and risk of cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 1992;45(2):198–201.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Kilkku P, Gronroos M. Peroperative electrocoagulation of endocervical mucosa and later carcinoma of the cervical stump. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1982;61:265–7.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Committee Opinion No. 388: Supracervical Hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 2007, 110(5):1215-1217.
49.
ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 131: Screening for cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2012, 120(5):1222-1238.
50.
Frick AC, Walters MD, Larkin KS, Barber MD. Risk of unanticipated abnormal gynecologic pathology at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202:507.e1–4.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Management Options for Women with Uterine Prolapse Interested in Uterine Preservation
Authors
Nathan Kow
Howard B. Goldman
Beri Ridgeway
Publication date
01-10-2013
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Current Urology Reports / Issue 5/2013
Print ISSN: 1527-2737
Electronic ISSN: 1534-6285
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-013-0336-7

Other articles of this Issue 5/2013

Current Urology Reports 5/2013 Go to the issue

Testis and Penile Cancer (M Manoharan and J Sheinfeld, Section Editors)

Critical Evaluation of Modified Templates and Current Trends in Retroperitoneal Lymph Node Dissection

Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Voiding Dysfunction (G Badlani and H Goldman, Section Editors)

Myofascial Trigger Points of the Pelvic Floor: Associations with Urological Pain Syndromes and Treatment Strategies Including Injection Therapy

Surgical Techniques (J Cadeddu and A Stenzl, Section Editors)

Reducing Morbidity of Pelvic and Retroperitoneal Lymphadenectomy

Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Voiding Dysfunction (G Badlani and H Goldman, Section Editors)

Latissimus Dorsi Detrusor Myoplasty to Restore Voiding in Patients with an Acontractile Bladder – Fact or Fiction?

Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms and Voiding Dysfunction (G Badlani and H Goldman, Section Editors)

From Physiology to Pharmacy: Developments in the Pathogenesis and Treatment of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections

Testis and Penile Cancer (M Manoharan and J Sheinfeld, Section Editors)

Late Relapse of Testis Cancer