Abstract
Attitudes to sexuality and the psychological value of reproductive organs have changed in Western countries over the last few decades. Nevertheless, repair of pelvic support defects with concomitant hysterectomy is still considered the standard treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. Over the last 10 years, however, interest has been growing in uterus-sparing surgery, which can be divided into vaginal, abdominal, and laparoscopic procedures. The majority of studies on uterus-sparing surgery, with the exception of abdominal techniques, report few cases with short follow-up. Sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most studied vaginal technique for uterus preservation and favorable results have been demonstrated, although the majority of studies are flawed by selection and information bias, short follow-up and lack of adequate control groups. Abdominal and laparoscopic procedures are promising, providing similar functional and anatomical results to hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy. Consensus is growing that the uterus can be preserved at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery in appropriately selected women who desire it. The results of comparison trials and prospective studies confirm that uterus-sparing surgery is feasible and is associated with similar outcomes to hysterectomy, as well as shorter operating times. Surgeons should be ready to respond to the wishes of female patients who want to preserve vaginal function and the uterus.
Key Points
-
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is estimated to affect nearly half of all females over 50 years of age and has a negative impact on quality of life
-
Treatment depends on factors such as the severity or grade of POP, symptoms, the patient's general condition and expectations, and the surgeon's experience
-
In the last few years, a number of studies have described successful anatomical and functional outcomes after uterus-preserving POP repair in young and elderly women
-
Sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most studied vaginal technique for uterus preservation and favorable results have been demonstrated
-
Abdominal and laparoscopic approaches appear promising, providing similar functional and anatomical results to hysterectomy and sacrocolpopexy
-
Consensus is growing that the uterus can be preserved at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery in appropriately selected women who desire it
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Samuelsson, E. C., Victor, F. T., Tibblin, G. & Svardsudd, K. F. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 180, 299–305 (1999).
Olsen, A. L., Smith, V. J., Bergstrom, J. O., Colling, J. C. & Clark, A. L. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet. Gynecol. 89, 501–506 (1997).
Subak, L. L. et al. Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet. Gynecol. 98, 646–651 (2001).
Nichols, D. H. In Gynecologic and Obstetric Surgery 431–464 (Mosby, St Louis, 1993).
Lakeman, M. M., van der Vaart, C. H. & Roovers, J. P. Hysterectomy and lower urinary tract symptoms: a nonrandomized comparison of vaginal and abdominal hysterectomy. Gynecol. Obstet. Invest. 70, 100–106 (2010).
Thakar, R., Ayers, S., Clarkson, P., Stanton, S. & Manyonda, I. Outcomes after total versus subtotal abdominal hysterectomy. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 1318–1325 (2002).
Altman, D., Granath, F., Cnattingius, S. & Falconer, C. Hysterectomy and risk of stress-urinary-incontinence surgery: nationwide cohort study. Lancet 370, 1494–1499 (2007).
Costantini, E., Lazzeri, M. & Porena, M. Hysterectomy and stress urinary incontinence. Lancet 371, 383–384 (2008).
Richardson, D. A., Scotti, R. J. & Ostergard, D. R. Surgical management of uterine prolapse in young women. J. Reprod. Med. 34, 388–392 (1989).
Kovac, S. R. & Cruikshank, S. H. Successful pregnancies and vaginal deliveries after sacrospinous uterosacral fixation in five of nineteen patients. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 168, 1778–1783 (1993).
Neuman, M. & Lavy, Y. Conservation of the prolapsed uterus is a valid option: medium term results of a prospective comparative study with the posterior intravaginal slingplasty operation. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 18, 889–893 (2007).
Chopin, N. et al. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign uterine pathologies: obesity does not increase the risk of complications. Hum. Reprod. 24, 3057–3062 (2009).
Dutta, D. K. & Dutta, B. Surgical management of genital prolapse in an industrial hospital. J. Indian Med. Assoc. 92, 366–367 (1994).
Kalogirou, D., Antoniou, G., Karakitsos, P. & Kalogirou, O. Comparison of surgical and postoperative complications of vaginal hysterectomy and Manchester procedure. Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 17, 278–280 (1996).
Thomas, A. G. et al. Manchester procedure vs. vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse. A comparison. J. Reprod. Med. 40, 299–304 (1995).
Ayhan, A., Esin, S., Guven, S., Salman, C. & Ozyuncu, O. The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 92, 228–233 (2006).
Hopkins, M. P., Devine, J. B. & DeLancey, J. O. Uterine problems discovered after presumed hysterectomy: the Manchester operation revisited. Obstet. Gynecol. 89, 846–848 (1997).
Skiadas, C. C., Goldstein, D. P. & Laufer, M. R. The Manchester-Fothergill procedure as a fertility sparing alternative for pelvic organ prolapse in young women. J. Pediatr. Adolesc. Gynecol. 19, 89–93 (2006).
Tipton, R. H. & Atkin, P. F. Uterine disease after the Manchester repair operation. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Br. Commonw. 77, 852–853 (1970).
Conger, G. T. & Keettel, W. C. The Manchester-Fothergill operation, its place in gynecology; a review of 960 cases at University Hospitals, Iowa City, Iowa. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 76, 634–640 (1958).
de Boer, T. A., Milani, A. L., Kluivers, K. B., Withagen, M. I. & Vierhout, M. E. 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. 20, 1313–1319 (2009).
Williams, B. F. Surgical treatment for uterine prolapse in young women. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 95, 967–971 (1966).
Ridgeway, B., Frick, A. C. & Walter, M. D. Hysteropexy: A review. Minerva Ginecol. 60, 509–528 (2008).
Petros, P. E. Vault prolapse II: restoration of dynamic vaginal supports by infracoccygeal sacropexy, an axial day-case vaginal procedure. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 12, 296–303 (2001).
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. 188, 645–650 (2003).
Vardy, M. D. et al. Anterior intravaginal slingplasty tunneler device for stress incontinence and posterior intravaginal slingplasty for apical vault prolapse: a 2-year prospective multicenter study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 197, 104.e1–e8 (2007).
Dietz, V., Schraffordt Koops, S. E. & van der Vaart, C. H. Vaginal surgery for uterine descent; which options do we have? A review of the literature. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 20, 349–356 (2009).
Nicita, G. et al. Uterus-sparing vaginal surgery of genitourinary prolapse employing biocompatible material. Urol. Int. 75, 314–318 (2005).
Dietz, V., Huisman, M., de Jong, J. M., Heintz, P. M. & van der Vaart, C. H. Functional outcome after sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterine descensus. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 19, 747–752 (2008).
Maher, C. F. et al. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 12, 381–384 (2001).
van Brummen, H. J., van de Pol, G., Aalders, C. I., Heintz, A. P. & van der Vaart, C. H. 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, 350–355 (2003).
Hefni, M. & El-Thoukhy, T. Sacrospinous cervico-colpopexy with follow-up 2 years after successful pregnancy. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 103, 188–190 (2002).
Dietz, V., van der Vaart, C. H., van der Graaf, Y., Heintz, P. & Schraffordt Koops, S. E. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 21, 209–216 (2010).
Colombo, M. & Milani, R. Sacrospinous ligament fixation and modified McCall culdoplasty during vaginal hysterectomy for advanced uterovaginal prolapse. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 179, 13–20 (1998).
Hefni, M. A. & El-Toukhy, T. A. Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal and vault prolapse. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol. 127, 257–263 (2006).
Jeng, C. J., Yang, Y. C., Tzeng, C. R., Shen, J. & Wang, L. R. Sexual functioning after vaginal hysterectomy or transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension for uterine prolapse. J. Reprod. Med. 50, 669–674 (2005).
Gamble, T. L. et al. Bilateral graft-augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy: 1-year anatomic and functional outcomes following surgery for uterine preservation. J. Pelvic Med. Surg. 14, 275–279 (2008).
Takahashi, S. et al. Tension-free vaginal mesh procedure for pelvic organ prolapse: a single-center experience of 310 cases with 1-year follow up. Int. J. Urol. 17, 353–358 (2010).
Kato, K. et al. Clinical pathway for tension-free vaginal mesh procedure: evaluation in 300 patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int. J. Urol. 16, 314–317 (2009).
Caquant, F. et al. Safety of trans vaginal mesh procedure: retrospective study of 684 patients. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 34, 449–456 (2008).
Joshi, V. M. A new technique of uterine suspension to pectineal ligaments in the management of uterovaginal prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 81, 790–793 (1993).
Nesbitt, R. E. Jr. Uterine preservation in the surgical management of genuine stress urinary incontinence associated with uterovaginal prolapse. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 168, 143–147 (1989).
Walters, M. D. Uterovaginal prolapse in a woman desiring uterine preservation. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dynsfunct. 19, 1465–1470 (2008).
Costantini, E. et al. Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur. Urol. 48, 642–649 (2005).
Roovers, J. P. et al. A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function. BJOG 111, 50–56 (2004).
Maher, C., Baessler, K., Glazener, C. M., Adams, E. J. & Hagen, S. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. Issue 3. Art. No.: CD004014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub3 (2007).
Imparato, E., Aspesi, G., Rovetta, E. & Presti, M. Surgical management and prevention of vaginal vault prolapse. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 175, 233–237 (1992).
Culligan, P. J. et al. Long-term success of abdominal sacral colpopexy using synthetic mesh. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 187, 1473–1480 (2002).
Thompson, P. K., Pugmire, J. E. & Sangi-Haghpeykar, H. Abdominal colposacropexy utilizing gore-tex in genital prolapse. J. Pelvic Med. Surg. 10, 311–317 (2004).
Mattox, T. F., Stanford, E. J. & Varner, E. Infected abdominal sacrocolpopexies: diagnosis and treatment. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 15, 319–323 (2004).
Visco, A. G., Barber, M. D. & Myers, E. R. Early physician experience with laparoscopically assisted vaginal hysterectomy and rates of surgical complications and conversion to laparotomy. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 187, 1008–1012 (2002).
Brizzolara, S. & Pillai-Allen, A. Risk of mesh erosion with sacral colpopexy and concurrent hysterectomy. Obstet. Gynecol. 102, 306–310 (2003).
Fedorkow, D. M. & Kalbfleisch, E. R. Total abdominal hysterectomy at abdominal sacrovaginopexy: a comparative study. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 169, 641–643 (1993).
O'Brien, P. M. & Ibrahim, J. Failure of laparoscopic uterine suspension to provide a lasting cure for uterovaginal prolapse. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 101, 707–708 (1994).
Wu, M. P. Laparoscopic uterine suspension for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 59, 259–260 (1997).
Maher, C. F., Carey, M. P. & Murray, C. J. Laparoscopic suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Obstet. Gynecol. 97, 1010–1014 (2001).
Agarwala, N., Hasiak, N. & Shade, M. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy with Gynemesh as graft material—experience and results. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 14, 577–583 (2007).
Ross, J. W. & Preston, M. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for severe vaginal vault prolapse: five-year outcome. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 12, 221–226 (2005).
Rivoire, C. et al. Complete laparoscopic treatment of genital prolapse with meshes including vaginal promontofixation and anterior repair: a series of 138 patients. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 14, 712–718 (2007).
Sarlos, D., Brandner, S., Kots, L., Gygax, N. & Schaer, G. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for uterine and post-hysterectomy prolapse: anatomical results, quality of life and perioperative outcome—a prospective study with 101 cases. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 19, 1415–1422 (2008).
Rozet, F. et al. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy approach for genito-urinary prolapse: experience with 363 cases. Eur. Urol. 47, 230–236 (2005).
Krause, H. G., Goh, J. T., Sloane, K., Higgs, P. & Carey, M. P. Laparoscopic sacral suture hysteropexy for uterine prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 17, 378–381 (2006).
Uccella, S. et al. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligaments plication for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 276, 225–229 (2007).
Rosenblatt, P. L., Chelmow, D. & Ferzandi, T. R. Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of uterine prolapse: a retrospective case series report. J. Minim. Invasive Gynecol. 15, 268–272 (2008).
Price, N., Slack, A. & Jackson, S. R. Laparoscopic hysteropexy: the initial results of a uterine suspension procedure for uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG 117, 62–68 (2010).
Carey, M. P. & Slack, M. C. Transvaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vault and marked uterovaginal prolapse. Br. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 101, 536–540 (1994).
Lin, T. Y. et al. Risk factors for failure of transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension in the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 104, 249–253 (2005).
Dietz, V. et al. The effectiveness of the sacrospinous hysteropexy for the primary treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 18, 1271–1276 (2007).
Stoesser, F. G. Construction of a sacrocervical ligament for uterine suspension. Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 101, 638–641 (1955).
van Lindert, A. C., Groenendijk, A. G., Scholten, P. C. & Heintz, A. P. Surgical support and suspension of genital prolapse including preservation of the uterus, using the Gore-tex® soft tissue patch (a preliminary report). Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Repr. Biol. 50, 133–139 (1993).
Addison, W. A. & Timmons, M. C. Abdominal approach to vaginal eversion. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 36, 995–1004 (1993).
Banu, L. F. Synthetic sling for genital prolapse in young women. Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 57, 57–64 (1997).
Costantini, E., Lombi, R., Micheli, C., Parziani, S. & Porena, M. Colposacropexy with Gore-tex mesh in marked vaginal and uterovaginal prolapse. Eur. Urol. 34, 111–117 (1998).
Leron, E. & Stanton, S. L. Sacrohysteropexy with synthetic mesh for the management of uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG 108, 629–633 (2001).
Roovers, J. P., van der Bom, J. G., van der Vaart, C. H., Schagen van Leeuwen, J. H. & Heintz, A. P. Abdominal versus vaginal approach for the management of genital prolapse and coexisting stress incontinence. Int. Urogynecol. J. Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 13, 224–231 (2002).
Barranger, E., Fritel, X. & Pigne, A. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: Long-term follow-up. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 189, 1245–1250 (2003).
Demirci, F. et al. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: results of 20 cases. J. Reprod. Med. 51, 539–543 (2006).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A. Zucchi, M. Lazzeri and E. Costantini contributed to researching data, discussing content and writing the article. M. Porena and L. Mearini provided substantial contribution towards discussion of content and reviewed the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zucchi, A., Lazzeri, M., Porena, M. et al. Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol 7, 626–633 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.164
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.164
This article is cited by
-
Changes in the probability of hysterectomy in the city of Mainz and Mainz-Bingen region, Germany
BMC Public Health (2023)
-
Pregnancy outcomes after abdominal sacrocervicopexy
International Urogynecology Journal (2022)
-
Time-frame comparison of hystero-preservation in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: a population-based nation-wide follow-up descriptive study, 2006–2013 versus 1997–2005
International Urogynecology Journal (2020)
-
Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse using validated questionnaires: 2-year prospective study
International Urogynecology Journal (2018)
-
The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes
International Urogynecology Journal (2018)