Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

Open Access 13-04-2023 | Stress Incontinence | Original Article

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation

Authors: Hirotaka Sato, Shota Otsuka, Hirokazu Abe, Sachiyuki Tsukada

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 9/2023

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Sacrocolpopexy was traditionally performed for post-hysterectomy prolapse or during concurrent hysterectomy. Sacrocolpopexy outcome with uterine preservation is poorly investigated. This study compared outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation.

Methods

This retrospective study compared data of patients with pelvic organ prolapse who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with uterine preservation with the data of controls who underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy. We analyzed composite failure in uterine preservation versus concurrent supracervical hysterectomy (primary objective) and evaluated factors associated with the primary outcome of composite failure after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with preservation or supracervical hysterectomy (secondary objective). Composite failure was defined as subjective bulge symptoms, reoperation, or anatomical prolapse. Cox models indicated time to composite failure as an endpoint.

Results

Of 274 patients, 232 underwent laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy and 42 underwent laparoscopic uterine preservation. After propensity score matching (ratio: 2, for the laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with supracervical hysterectomy group), 56 patients (24.1%) were in the supracervical hysterectomy group and 28 (66.7%) in the uterine preservation group. All patients underwent 24 months of follow-up. The composite failure rates were 10.7% for supracervical hysterectomy and 3.6% for preservation (p=0.87). The mean estimated blood loss was 10 ml (preservation, 10.0 ml [5.0–10.0] versus supracervical hysterectomy, 10.0 ml [10.0–15.0]; p=0.007). In the Cox proportional hazards model, higher preoperative body mass index and the point Ba increased composite failure risk.

Conclusions

Although not statistically significant, composite failure in the two techniques is likely clinically meaningful.

Available only for authorised users

Study Guide from StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL), 23 Oct 2020.

Hospital intelligence agency. Pages of DPC statistics. http://hospia.jp/dpc. Accessed 8 August 2022.

Wilkins MF, Wu JM. Lifetime risk of surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69:171–7. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0026-4784.16.04011-9.CrossRefPubMed

Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:470.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003,PMID23921090.CrossRefPubMed

Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219:129–146.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.018.CrossRefPubMed

Gracia M, Perelló M, Bataller E, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34:654–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22641.CrossRefPubMed

Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, et al. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33:359–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04865-0.CrossRefPubMed

Gagyor D, Kalis V, Smazinka M, Rusavy Z, Pilka R, Ismail KM. Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study). BMC Womens Health. 2021;21:72. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-021-01208-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nair R, Nikolopoulos KI, Claydon LS. Clinical outcomes in women undergoing laparoscopic hysteropexy: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;208:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.11.019.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Sato H, Abe H, Ikeda A, Miyagawa T, Sato K. Complications and clinical outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2021;41:128–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443615.2020.1724914.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Austin PC. Propensity-score matching in the cardiovascular surgery literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review and suggestions for improvement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007;134:1128–35.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Gluck O, Blaganje M, Veit-Rubin N, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive literature review on current practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;245:94–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.12.029.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Yoshida M, Murayama R, Ota E, Nakata M, Kozuma S, Homma Y. Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-short form 20. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1039–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1962-1.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Ichikawa M, Akira S, Takeshita T. Laparoscopic posterior colporrhaphy using a unidirectional barbed suture for risk hedging laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2017;6:96–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gmit.2017.02.001.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Vidal F, Léonard F, André B, Guerby P, Jourdain O. Comparative mid-term anatomical and functional outcomes following laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in women under and over 65: results from a prospective study. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018;297:1465–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4738-0.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Smazinka M, Kalis V, Havir M, Havelkova L, Ismail KM, Rusavy Z. Obesity and its long-term impact on sacrocolpopexy key outcomes (OBELISK). Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31:1655–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04076-8.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Aslam MF, Osmundsen B, Edwards SR, Matthews C, Gregory WT. Preoperative prolapse stage as predictor of failure of sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:156–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000233.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Padoa A, Shiber Y, Fligelman T, Tomashev R, Tsviban A, Smorgick N. Advanced cystocele is a risk factor for surgical failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022;29:409–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2021.11.002.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Rusavy Z, Najib B, Abdelkhalek Y, Grinstein E, Gluck O, Deval B. Outcomes of sacrocolpopexy/sacrohysteropexy with mesh placement targeted to affected compartment. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;272:188–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.03.037.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Chan SS, Cheung RY, Lai BP, Lee LL, Choy KW, Chung TK. Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire in women undergoing treatment for pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:213–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1827-7.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Barber MD, Spino C, Janz NK, et al. The minimum important differences for the urinary scales of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:580.e1−7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.02.007.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Jelovsek JE, Chen Z, Markland AD, et al. Minimum important differences for scales assessing symptom severity and quality of life in patients with fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:342–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000078.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Lewis C, Salamon C, Priestley JL, Gurshumov E, Culligan P. Prospective cohort study of bowel function after robotic sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:87–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000049.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Giugale LE, Carter-Brooks CM, Ross JH, Shepherd JP, Zyczynsky HM. Outcomes of a staged midurethral sling strategy for stress incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134:736–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Turner L, Lavelle E, Lowder JL, Shepherd JP. The impact of obesity on intraoperative complications and prolapse recurrence after minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22:317–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000278.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Azadi A, Marchand G, Masoud AT, et al. Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the uterus, a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;267:90–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.10.020.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Wang R, Tunitsky-Bitton E, Ramaseshan AS. Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation at the time of pelvic reconstructive surgery. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022;44:359–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2021.10.012.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Andy UU, Nosti PA, Kane S, et al. Incidence of unanticipated uterine pathology at the time of minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014;21:97–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2013.07.008.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Chang OH, Davidson ERW, Thomas TN, Paraiso MFR, Ferrando CA. Predictors for pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after sacrocolpopexy: a matched case-control study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2021;27:165–70.CrossRef

Title: Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation
Authors: Hirotaka Sato
Shota Otsuka
Hirokazu Abe
Sachiyuki Tsukada
Publication date: 13-04-2023
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Stress Incontinence
Sacrocolpopexy
Supracervical Hysterectomy
Hysterectomy
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 9/2023
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-023-05534-0

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 9/2023

A randomised interventional parallel study to evaluate the effect of different frequencies of pelvic floor muscle exercises with core stabilisation using three-dimensional ultrasound: the PELSTAB study

A serious consequence of pelvic organ prolapse: Hydroureteronephrosis

Correlation of anorectal symptoms and endoanal ultrasound findings after obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS)

Association between vaginal or cesarean delivery and later development of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective population-based cohort study

Cause of non-specific low back pain in women: pelvic floor muscle weakness

A population-based cross-sectional survey on the prevalence, severity, risk factors, and self-perception of female urinary incontinence in rural Fujian, China