Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes

Subjective Long-Term Outcomes After Vaginal Native Tissue Hysteropexy: Cohort Study

IMPORTANCE

There are still doubts about long-term satisfaction rates of native tissue uterine preserving surgical techniques for pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare long-term subjective success rates and satisfaction rates between vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) and vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (VH-USLS).

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective single-center, observational matched cohort study in women receiving either SSHP or VH-USLS between 2004 and 2021. Primary outcome was overall subjective success (combined outcome of absence of bulge nor retreatment, and satisfaction with operation) at least 12 months after surgery. Satisfaction with the operation was defined as a combined Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating ≤ 2 and a patient satisfaction score ≥7.

RESULTS

Of 583 patients, 192 patients could be matched (SSHP, 96; VH-USLS, 96), with 55% (SSHP, 60; VH-USLS, 45) participating at the telephone interview. Mean follow-up time was 77 months for VH-USLS, and 36 months for SSHP, respectively. No difference in overall subjective success rates was found between the groups (45% VH-USLS and 51% SSHP; P = 0.54). Overall satisfaction was similar between both groups (70% vs 71%, P = 0.90). Logistic regression found no influence of duration of follow-up and the overall subjective success rate. Both procedures would be recommended to a relative or friend by a large majority of patients (88% vs 85%, P = 0.761). Operative time and hospitalization time were significantly shorter in the SSHP group. No serious complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall success rates did not differ between both procedures after at least 1 year of follow-up with relatively high satisfaction rates. Sacrospinous hysteropexy had shorter operative time and shorter duration of hospitalization.

Safety of an anchor-based device for sacrospinous ligament fixation: A pilot case-control study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) is a popular surgical technique for treating apical prolapse. The use of suture-capturing devices (SCD), or the more recently introduced anchor-based device (ABD), is useful for a posterior approach but essential for an anterior one. The aim of our study was to assess the safety of the ABD, which was recently introduced to our unit, compared to the traditionally used SCD.

METHODS

This was a pilot case-control study of 40 patients who had a SSLF, 20 of these represented all the patients who had the procedure with the aid of the ABD and 20 patients who had the procedure using the SCD over approximately the same duration. The main safety endpoints of this pilot study were patient reported postoperative pain scores and perioperative complications rate.

RESULTS

The population characteristics were similar. The mean postoperative pain scores differed significantly only on postoperative day 1 in favor of the suture capturing device (3.40 [2.60] vs 1.60 [1.64], p = 0.013). The mean highest pain score was similar in both groups. Peri-operative complications rates were low and comparable between both groups. According to POPQ at 6 weeks follow-up the median Ba point was higher in the ABD group and this difference was significant (-3.00 [-3.00; -2.25] vs. -2.00 [-3.00; -1.50]; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The anchor-based device for sacrospinal ligament fixation seems to have comparable safety profile to the traditionally used suture capturing devices.

The effects of various therapies on vulvovaginal atrophy and quality of life in gynecological cancer patients: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Tumors affecting the female genital tract and their treatments have the potential to induce adverse modifications in vaginal health and impact personal aspects of patient's lives. Vulvovaginal atrophy is one of the morphological changes observed in individuals with a history of gynecological cancer, influenced both by the biological environment of tumors and the main therapeutic modalities employed. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify approaches to treat vulvovaginal atrophy while assessing the impact on the emotional and sexual health of women diagnosed with gynecological cancers.

METHODS

To achieve this goal, a systematic review was conducted following the methodological guidelines outlined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The databases used for literature research were PubMed and Web of Science.

RESULTS

Initially, 886 articles were obtained. After eliminating duplicates and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, seven articles were selected for analysis. The period of highest publication activity spanned from 2017 to 2020, with the majority conducted in Italy. Five treatment modalities were identified and categorized as vaginal suppository, oral medication, surgical procedure, CO2 laser therapy, and vaginal dilator. Twenty-four outcomes related to vaginal health and 30 outcomes related to overall, sexual, and emotional quality of life were analyzed.

CONCLUSION

In general, all interventions demonstrated the ability to improve vaginal health or, at the very least, the sexual health of patients. Thus, despite limitations, all treatments have the potential to address vulvovaginal atrophy in patients with a history of gynecological cancer.

The Outcomes of the Manchester Procedure Versus Sacrospinous Ligament Hysteropexy for Uterine Prolapse: A Study of the British Society of Urogynaecology Database

INTRODUCTION

The Manchester procedure (MP) and sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy (SSHP) have long been established as effective conservative surgeries for treating uterine prolapse. However, there have been limited studies on outcomes comparing these two techniques.

METHODOLOGY

This was a prospective cohort study of the British Society of Urogynaecology database between February 2007 and 2023 of MP and SSHP outcomes from 90 centres in the UK. The primary outcome was the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I). The other outcomes compared were the absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q), complications, and the incidence of reported symptomatic prolapse within 1 year after the operation.

RESULTS

There were 718 women who underwent MP and 2,384 who had SSHP. The PGI-I score was significantly better in the MP group (p value <0.001). The rates of symptomatic prolapse within 1 year (odds ratio [OR] 0.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-0.69; p value 0.001), recurrence of prolapse beyond the hymen (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03-0.53; p value 0.001) and apical recurrence (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01-0.65; p value 0.003) during follow-up examination were lower in the MP group. The combined peri-operative and post-operative complications reported in both groups were comparatively similar.

CONCLUSION

The symptom improvement was better and recurrence was lower with the MP than with SSHP at short-term follow-up.

Anterior sacrospinous ligament fixation by the vaginal route in ten steps

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition affecting women, characterized by the descent of pelvic organs such as the vagina and uterus. While POP may not always cause symptoms, it can significantly impact a woman's quality of life. Diagnosis is typically made through clinical examination, and treatment options range from pelvic-floor physical therapy to surgery. Anterior sacrospinous ligament fixation (ASSLF) has emerged as a viable technique for treating apical prolapse vaginally. This procedure involves attaching the cervix or vaginal vault to the sacrospinous ligament, providing satisfactory results in the short term. Compared to the posterior approach, ASSLF shows similar efficacy, shorter operative time, and potentially fewer complications. Vaginal surgery offers advantages such as lower morbidity and cost, ability to address other pelvic conditions simultaneously, and suitability for managing recurrences. The presented case involves a 72-year-old woman with stage 3 cystocele, stage 3 hysterocele, stage 1 rectocele, and severe voiding dysfunction. After unsuccessful attempts with a pessary, surgical intervention becomes necessary. An instructive video article has been created to standardize the essential steps of ASSLF and facilitate resident education. The video demonstrates ten surgical steps, including installation/exposure, anterior vaginal wall infiltration, median anterior colpotomy, vesico-vaginal dissection, paravesical dissection, sacrospinous ligament suture, cystocele correction, colpotomy and vaginal wall repair, uterine anterior isthmus suture and sacrospinous ligament fixation, and colporrhaphy final closure. In conclusion, POP is a prevalent condition that can be effectively managed through techniques like ASSLF. Vaginal surgery offers several advantages, and proper training and standardization of surgical steps contribute to successful outcomes and resident education.

Anterior approach sacrospinous hysteropexy: native tissue compared with mesh-augmented repair for primary uterovaginal prolapse management

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) was popularized by transvaginal mesh kits. Following mesh-kit market withdrawal, we hypothesized similar efficacy through native-tissue reattachment of the pubocervical fascia with fixation of the anterior cervix to the sacrospinous ligament. Few analyses for anterior native-tissue versus mesh-augmented SSH exist.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of women who underwent transvaginal anterior SSH between 01 January 2016 and 31 December 2022 was performed. Women who underwent a mesh-augmented (Uphold Lite Vaginal Support System™) versus native-tissue repair were compared. Composite success was defined as no bulge symptoms, no retreatment, and no recurrence beyond the hymen with apex nondescended > one third of the total vaginal length. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were obtained as indicated.

RESULTS

Of 223 women screened, inclusion criteria were met by 124 (40 mesh-augmented; 84 native-tissue). There was no difference in pre-operative characteristics between groups. Composite success was demonstrated in 95.2% of women with a median follow-up of 224 days (range: 30-988). Two women in the mesh-augmented group reported bulge symptoms and underwent re-treatment with a pessary. Four women in the native-tissue group reported bulge symptoms; 3 underwent re-treatment (2 pessary, 1 surgery). There were no differences in composite success rates between groups (p=0.954). There were additionally no differences in intra-operative (p=0.752) or post-operative (p=0.292) complication rates between the groups. There were no mesh-related complications, including exposure or chronic pelvic pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Ninety-five percent of women achieved surgical success and the use of mesh augmentation did not confer added benefit in terms of efficacy or complications when compared with native tissue. Further long-term data are needed to continue our assessment of native-tissue anterior SSH.

Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

In many countries, sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most commonly practiced uterus-preserving technique in women undergoing a first operation for pelvic organ prolapse. However, there are no direct comparisons of outcomes after sacrospinous hysteropexy vs an older technique, the Manchester procedure.

Objective

To compare success of sacrospinous hysteropexy vs the Manchester procedure for the surgical treatment of uterine descent.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands among 434 adult patients undergoing a first surgical treatment for uterine descent that did not protrude beyond the hymen.

Interventions

Participants were randomly assigned to undergo sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 217) or Manchester procedure (n = 217).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was a composite outcome of success, defined as absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by a standardized vaginal support quantification system, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of prolapse retreatment (pessary or surgery) within 2 years after the operation. The predefined noninferiority margin was 9%. Secondary outcomes were anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and surgery-related complications.

Results

Among 393 participants included in the as-randomized analysis (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 151 of 196 (77.0%) in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 172 of 197 (87.3%) in the Manchester procedure group achieved the composite outcome of success. Sacrospinous hysteropexy did not meet the noninferiority criterion of -9% for the lower limit of the CI (risk difference, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.8% to -2.8%; P = .63 for noninferiority). At 2-year follow-up, perioperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups.

Conclusions

Based on the composite outcome of surgical success 2 years after primary uterus-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery for uterine descent, these results support a finding that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure.

Trial Registration

TrialRegister.nl Identifier: NTR 6978.

Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Prolapse Hysterectomy with Apical Fixation: A Retrospective Comparison over an 18 Year Period

Background. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common health problem, with a high lifetime risk for prolapse surgery. Uterine-preserving procedures such as vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) have become an increasingly utilized surgical option for the primary treatment of POP. We wanted to evaluate peri- and postoperative outcome parameters of SSH as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical fixation. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted (2003–2021). All patients who underwent primary SSH (study group) for symptomatic POP were matched 1:1 by age and BMI with patients who underwent primary prolapse hysterectomy with apical fixation (control group). Results. A total of 192 patients were included with 96 patients in the each of the SSH and hysterectomy groups. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. The SSH group show a significantly shorter mean surgery time (p < 0.001), significantly fewer hospitalization days (p < 0.001), and significantly less intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.033) in comparison to the control group. Neither group had any intraoperative complication, or an intraoperative conversion to other surgical management options. No statistically significant difference was found in postoperative complications as categorized by the Clavien–Dindo classification or in postoperative urogynecological issues (UTI, de-novo, incontinence, residual urine, voiding disorders). Through log regression, none of the confounding factors such as age, BMI, or preoperative POP-Q stage could be identified as independent risk factors for the occurrence of postoperative complications. Conclusions. Our results confirm that a uterus-preserving technique has many benefits and, thus, should be considered as an additional intermediate step in a long-term treatment plan of pelvic organ prolapse.

Concomitant pericervical reconstruction with sacrospinous hysteropexy: Anatomical and functional results

OBJECTIVE

Pericervical ring reconstruction through restoration of pubocervical and rectovaginal fascia is performed concomitantly with sacrospinous hysteropexy as a transvaginal native tissue procedure for vaginal apical prolapse. The main goal of this study was to assess subjective and objective outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy and additional pericervical ring reconstruction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective and observational study. All participants underwent sacrospinous hysteropexy and pericervical ring reconstruction and perineorrhaphy. Surgical complications, anatomical and functional efficacy were assessed.

RESULTS

108 cases were included in this study. The mean follow-up timeframe was 18.62 ± 1.22 months (minimum 12 and maximum 26 months). All parameters of subjective outcomes were improved significantly. The overall anatomic success rate was 92.59%. Mean operation time was 50.64 ± 20.8 min. No major intraoperative or postoperative complications were found. There was no statistically significant difference in demographic characteristics including age, BMI, gravidity, medical comorbidities, menopausal status, sexual activity, pretreatment prolapse severity scores between subjects with failure, and good anatomical outcome. Recurrence was mostly observed in patients with higher prolapse stages of anterior and apical compartments. Baseline POP-Q parameters Ba, C, D were significantly higher in cases with failure.

CONCLUSION

Our study disclosed sustainable anatomic and subjective outcomes of modified sacrospinous hysteropexy by means of additional pericervical ring reconstruction.

Reoperation for prolapse recurrence after sacrospinous mesh hysteropexy: characteristics of women choosing retreatment

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Factors that contribute to reoperation and surgical approaches for the management of recurrent uterovaginal prolapse after vaginal mesh hysteropexy (mesh hysteropexy) are unknown. We aimed to describe surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after vaginal mesh hysteropexy, and patient characteristics in those who chose reoperation.

METHODS

This is a descriptive analysis of women who experienced treatment failure within 5 years of mesh hysteropexy in a multi-site randomized trial. The composite definition of treatment failure included retreatment (pessary or reoperation), prolapse beyond the hymen, or bothersome prolapse symptoms. Characteristics of those pursuing and not pursuing repeat prolapse surgery, measures of prolapse, and symptom severity are described.

RESULTS

Over 5-year follow up, 31/91 (34%) of the hysteropexy group met treatment failure criteria. All seven women who pursued reoperation reported bothersome prolapse symptoms; six were anatomic failures. Most seeking reoperation were early treatment failures; six (86%) by the 12-month visit and all by the 18-month visit. Compared to those electing expectant management, those pursuing reoperation had more apical prolapse, POP-Q point C median (IQR) -5.5 (-6.0, -4.0) cm versus +1.0 (-1.0, 3.0) cm respectively. Hysterectomy was performed in 6/7 reoperations (three vaginal, three endoscopic), with apical suspension in 5/6 hysterectomies. One participant with posterior compartment prolapse underwent transvaginal enterocele plication, uterosacral ligament suspension with posterior colpoperineorrhaphy. At a mean surgical follow-up of 34.3 (15.8) months, all women remained without anatomic or symptomatic failure.

CONCLUSIONS

When recurrent prolapse after mesh hysteropexy occurred, most women did not choose reoperation. Those who pursued surgery experienced more significant apical prolapse and were universally symptomatic.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER

NCT01802281.

Anterior bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation with concomitant anterior native tissue repair: a pilot study

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Anterior bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation (ABSSLF) was first described in 2000 but only evaluated in a limited number of studies. However, due to the FDA's ban on transvaginal mesh, interest in this technique has re-emerged. The SSLF procedure is known for its inherent high risk for anterior compartment failure; hence, in our center we started performing a preemptive concomitant anterior repair with the intention to reduce such risk. The aim of this study was to review the feasibility and clinical outcomes of this innovative technique.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of all the women who had an ABSSLF and a concomitant anterior native tissue repair between May 2019 and July 2020 in a tertiary hospital in France. Our primary endpoint was surgical feasibility, while as secondary endpoints we wanted to explore the perioperative morbidities and clinical outcomes associated with this technique.

RESULTS

A total of 50 women were operated on in the studied period. The median follow-up time was 10 [8.5] months. It was feasible to perform the combined ABSSLF and concomitant anterior native tissue repair in all cases. The most frequent perioperative complications reported were urinary tract infection (14%) and difficulty in resuming voiding (16%). Anatomical and functional results were improved. The rate of anterior compartment recurrence was 37%.

CONCLUSIONS

ABSSLF with a concomitant anterior native tissue repair is feasible and relatively safe for treating anterior and apical pelvic prolapse. However, anterior compartment failure rate is still a limitation. Further larger studies with long-term anatomical and functional results comparing this technique to alternative transvaginal surgical approaches are needed.

Development and validation of the Value of Uterus instrument and visual analog scale to measure patients' valuation of their uterus

BACKGROUND

Currently, there are no clear frameworks or tools to objectively or subjectively evaluate patient attitudes toward uterine preservation and how they influence the decision to proceed with hysterectomy vs uterine preservation when undergoing prolapse surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to develop a reliable and valid instrument to measure patients' valuation of their uterus.

STUDY DESIGN

The Value of Uterus instrument was developed on the basis of existing literature and created with structured patient-reported outcome measurement development methodology. An initial 14-question instrument was administered to 152 patients, and the instrument was revised on the basis of an analysis of internal consistency. The resulting Value of Uterus instrument has 6 items and includes a visual analog scale for the question "How important is it to you to keep your uterus when you have a gynecologic condition?" To validate the instrument, we recruited 51 patients aged >45 years with uterovaginal prolapse who presented to the urogynecology department and were scheduled to undergo vaginal surgery with or without hysterectomy. Internal reliability of the instrument was measured with Cronbach alpha. For known-groups validity, Value of Uterus summary scores were compared between women who underwent hysteropexy and those who underwent hysterectomy using the t test. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to assess test-retest reliability with Value of Uterus administered to women twice. Lastly, a receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was conducted to identify a cutoff Value of Uterus and visual analog scale score for predicting whether a woman would undergo hysteropexy (vs hysterectomy).

RESULTS

A total of 51 patients were recruited (26 patients in the hysterectomy and 25 in the hysteropexy group), with a mean age of 64±10 years; 87.8% of patients self-identified as White. There were no differences in demographics between the groups. Cronbach's alpha was 0.94, suggesting excellent internal consistency of the items in the Value of Uterus instrument. The Value of Uterus instrument was highly correlated with the visual analog scale question, with r=0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.89; P<.001). Patients in the hysteropexy group had significantly higher Value of Uterus scores (indicating greater value placed on the uterus) than women who underwent hysterectomy (20.8 vs 12.2; P<.001). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis identified a Value of Uterus cutoff score ≥14, with good accuracy for predicting hysteropexy (area under the curve, 0.87; sensitivity, 92.0%; specificity, 68%).

CONCLUSION

Value of Uterus is a reliable and valid 6-item instrument that measures patients' valuation of the uterus and preferences for uterine preservation when undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Value of Uterus and visual analog scale were shown to reliably predict whether a patient undergoes uterine-preserving prolapse surgery. The Value of Uterus instrument and visual analog scale tool can be useful tools to ensure that the patient's preferences are included in the medical decision-making. Value of Uterus may be useful for future research in other gynecologic conditions where uterine preservation is an option.

Recurrent surgery in uterine prolapse: A nationwide register study

INTRODUCTION

One in three women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) undergoing surgery have a relapse. Currently, no optimal surgical treatment has been identified for correcting a uterine prolapse. This population-based register study aims to compare the relapse rate in patients with uterine prolapse undergoing hysterectomy with suspension or uterine-sparing surgical procedures.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All women with uterine prolapse undergoing prolapse surgery in Sweden from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, were identified from the Gynecological Operation Register (GynOp). The primary outcome was the number of recurrent POP surgeries up to December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

Sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) without graft and sacrohysteropexy (SHP) were associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrent POP surgery (SSHP without graft: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.6, 95% CI 2.0-3.5; SHP aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8-3.7) and patients describing a sense of globe (SSHP without graft, aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6-2.6; SHP, aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.1) compared with cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament fixation (Manchester procedure). There was no difference in the reoperation rate or sense of a globe between SSHP with graft and Manchester procedure. Patients undergoing SSHP without graft had a higher frequency of 1-year postoperative complications compared with Manchester procedure (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6-2.6) and SHP (aOR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-3.9). Moreover, the frequency of 1-year postoperative complications was higher in SSHP with graft (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2) than in Manchester procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

The Manchester procedure was associated with a low rate of recurrent POP surgery, symptomatic recurrence and low surgical morbidity compared with other surgical methods in women with uterine prolapse.

A novel bilateral anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy technique for apical pelvic organ prolapse repair via the vaginal route: a cohort study

Background

Uterine-preserving techniques are becoming increasingly popular in the last decade. This investigation evaluates a novel hysteropexy technique using a mesh in sling-alike configuration [Splentis (Promedon, Argentina)] which is attached anteriorly to the cervix and suspended to the sacrospinous ligaments bilaterally via the vaginal route in women undergoing surgery for uterine prolapse.

Methods

This was a single-center cohort study, evaluating women who underwent transvaginal hysteropexy with Splentis for primary uterine descent. Data have been collected prospectively as part of the quality assurance system. Primary endpoint was treatment success, defined as a combined endpoint including the absence of a vaginal bulge symptom and no retreatment of apical prolapse. A validated questionnaire to evaluate quality-of-life and prolapse symptoms was utilized. Descriptive analysis was applied. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed to compare paired samples. The significance level was set at 5%.

Results

A total of 103 women with a median age of 68.0 [IQR 11.5] years with a median apical POP-Q stage of 3 were included. The median surgery time was 22 [IQR 12] minutes and no intraoperative complication occurred. After a median follow-up time of 17 months, treatment success was achieved in 91 (89.2%) patients and quality of life and patient report outcomes improved significantly (p < 0.001). Mesh exposure occurred in 3 (2.9%) patients. Of these, two patients required surgical revision, and one patient was treated conservatively. One patient required partial mesh removal due to dyspareunia.

Conclusion

Bilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy with Splentis offers an efficacious and safe alternative for apical compartment repair, incorporating the advantages of pelvic floor reconstruction via the vaginal route.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00404-022-06486-4.

Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several authors have recently compared the outcomes and complications of surgical procedures that preserve or remove the uterus in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following the publication of several high quality randomized control trials on this topic we performed a new systematic review and meta analysis of this data.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, EBSCO host, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled and cohort trials of uterine sparing prolapse repair (hysteropexy) versus hysterectomy with suspension. A total of 1285 patients from 14 studies were included in our systematic review and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Uterine sparing procedures (hysteropexy) were comparable to hysterectomy with suspension for recurrence rates (RR = 0.908, 95% CI [0.385, 2.143]), reoperation rates (RR = 1.517, 95% CI [0.802, 2.868]), length of hospital stay, (SMD =  - 0.159 days, 95% CI [-0.375, 0.057]), voiding dysfunction (RR = 1.089, 95% CI [0.695, 1.706]), and intraoperative blood loss (SMD =  - 0.339, 95% CI [-0.631, 0.047]). However, hysteropexy had shorter operative time than hysterectomy with suspension (SMD =  - 1.191 h, 95% CI [-1.836, -0.545]), and fewer visceral injuries (RR = 0.421, 95% CI [0.244, 0.725]).

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in the outcomes or major complications of uterine preserving surgical procedures versus those which include hysterectomy in the treatment of POP. Hysteropexy procedures may be associated with a shorter operative time and fewer visceral injuries. This is consistent with older analyses.

Short-term outcomes of anterior approach sacrospinous ligament fixation for apical vaginal prolapse - A retrospective study

Introduction

Vaginal sacrospinous fixation and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSF/SSHP) are highly effective procedures for apical compartment prolapse. The established technique is the posterior vaginal approach. The alternative anterior approach through an anterior vaginal incision, although occasionally mentioned in the literature, is less well established. However, this approach is a more appropriate route if posterior vaginal surgery is not indicated. The aim of this paper is to review surgical outcomes of anterior approach in our centre and to compare outcomes of SSF vs SSHP.

Methods

Retrospective case note review of 60 patients who underwent anterior SSF for prolapse between 2009-2017 was performed. Preoperative and postoperative symptoms and findings were recorded. Anterior SSF involved an anterior vaginal incision and paravaginal access to the ligament for dissection and fixation to either the cervix or vault.

Results

SSF was performed in 39 patients, out of which 8 underwent vaginal hysterectomy concomitantly. SSHP for uterine prolapse was performed in 21 patients. There were no cases of recurrent apical prolapse in the cohort at mean follow-up of 1 year. No intra-operative visceral injuries were observed. Recurrence of anterior wall prolapse and postoperative voiding dysfunction was observed in 8.3% and short-term buttock pain in 6.6% of patients.

Conclusion

Anterior approach SSF and SSHP is a safe and effective technique for apical prolapse and is the recommended route when posterior vaginal surgery is not required.

Short-term outcomes of sacrospinous hysteropexy through an anterior approach

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The posterior approach to sacrospinous hysteropexy has been well studied but little is known about the anterior approach. This study assessed the efficacy and complications of an anterior approach to sacrospinous hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy with apical repair. We hypothesized that anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy has similar efficacy and fewer complications.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study compared patients who underwent native-tissue anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy (cases) with those who underwent hysterectomy with apical repair (controls). Composite success was defined as (1) leading edge of prolapse not beyond the hymen and apex not descended > 1/3 total vaginal length; (2) no vaginal bulge symptoms; (3) no prolapse retreatment. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were performed as well as a Cox regression analysis for time to failure.

RESULTS

Fifty cases and 97 controls were compared. The median follow-up time was 7.6 months. Operative time was shorter in the hysteropexy group (110.7 vs. 155.9 min, p < 0.001). The composite success was 92% for both cases and controls (p = 1.000) with no difference in time to surgical failure (p = 0.183). There were no serious intraoperative complications in the hysteropexy group and six in the control group (3 transfusions, 1 conversion to laparotomy, 1 ureteral injury, 1 cystotomy; p = 0.101). There was no difference in the number of postoperative complications (22.0% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.203).

CONCLUSIONS

For primary uterine prolapse, anterior sacrospinous hysteropexy has similar short-term efficacy compared to hysterectomy with apical repair with shorter operative time and a trend towards fewer serious complications.

Vaginal Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Using Tissue Anchoring System Versus a Traditional Technique for Women With Apical Vaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the tissue anchoring system (TAS) kit versus the traditional technique for sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) to treat apical vaginal wall prolapse.

METHODS

A prospective randomized controlled multicenter study of noninferiority involving women with apical prolapse (C-point≥+1). Primary outcome is surgical success as C-point≤-4 at the 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes are success according to the composite criteria as C-point≤-4, Ba-point ≤0, and Bp-point ≤0; POP-Q measures of the vaginal compartments; intraoperative findings, complications; reoperation rate; hospital stay; and quality of life and sexual functioning (PISQ-12). It was estimated that 50 individuals per group would yield an 80% power for a noninferiority margin of 15%.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine women were randomized: TAS (n = 55) and traditional SSLF (n = 44). The groups' preoperative data were similar. Drop-out rate was 11% for 12-month follow-up. Success rates were 90% for TAS and 80% for traditional SSLF (P = 0.0006; absolute difference, 9.8%; 90% confidence interval, -5.2 to 24.8) with the sensivity analyses per-protocol considering only the subjects that completed the 12-month follow-up and 80% versus 73%, respectively (P = 0.0048; absolute difference, 7.3%; 90% confidence interval, -9.6 to 24.2) by sensivity analyses considering the total number of participants randomized and treated with drop-out cases as failure. We detected shorter intraoperative time to dissect and reach the SSL, shorter length of hospitalization, lower rates of urinary tract infection, and lower pain scores in the first 30 days postoperative in the TAS compared with the traditional SSLF groups (P < 0.05). There was an improvement in women's quality of life that did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified technique of SSLF using the TAS kit is noninferior to the traditional technique for the treatment of apical compartment in 12-month follow-up.

Sacrospinous ligament fixation with uterine preservation reduces the risk of anatomical recurrence in pelvic organ prolapse

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and whether uterine preservation reduces the anatomical recurrence rate.

METHODS

The medical records of 82 patients who received SSLF in a single medical center were reviewed retrospectively. Anatomical recurrence was defined as Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification stage 2 or higher in any compartment. The primary outcome was intergroup analysis for uterine preservation and concomitant hysterectomy patients. The secondary outcomes were anatomical recurrence risk factors and the incidence of adverse events. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to adjust for demographic differences between groups.

RESULTS

The anatomical recurrence rate was 19.5%, and the retreatment rate was 11.0% (mean follow-up duration: 22.9 months). Cystocele was the most common recurrent compartment (17.1%). The uterine preservation group (n = 66) was younger, had lower parity, and had fewer stage 3 to 4 cystoceles and uterine prolapses than the concomitant hysterectomy group (n = 16). Shorter operation times (99.4 minutes vs 153.7 minutes, P = .002) and lower anatomical recurrence rates (11.5% vs 45.5%, P = .039) were found in the uterine preservation group before and after PSM. Previous pelvic organ prolapse surgery (hazard ratio 3.14) and concomitant hysterectomy (hazard ratio 4.08) were identified as risk factors for anatomical recurrence. The most common adverse event was buttock pain (14.6%), which resolved spontaneously within 4 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

SSLF is an effective surgical method using native tissue for pelvic reconstruction. Compared with concomitant hysterectomy, SSLF with uterine preservation reduces the anatomical recurrence rate.

Native tissue sacrospinous hysteropexy from an anterior approach

AIM OF THE VIDEO

The goal of urogynecologic surgeons is to pair patients with the most appropriate and effective surgery. Sacrospinous hysteropexy has become an increasingly utilized surgical option for uterovaginal prolapse repair. The primary aim of this video is to highlight the role that sacrospinous hysteropexy can have in prolapse repair and to demonstrate an anterior approach for this procedure.

METHODS

We performed a literature review to provide general information on the efficacy, risks, and comparative benefits of sacrospinous hysteropexy. Our video demonstrates the key steps in performing a sacrospinous hysteropexy procedure from an anterior approach including method of dissection, suture fixation to the sacrospinous ligament, and cervical suspension.

RESULTS

Sacrospinous hysteropexy has generally been found to be an effective option for uterovaginal prolapse repair in properly selected patients. The demonstrated approach integrates sacrospinous ligament fixation with an anterior colporrhaphy.

CONCLUSIONS

Data and experience to date on sacrospinous hysteropexy are largely based on a posterior approach for access to the sacrospinous ligament. This surgical video demonstrates an anterior approach to sacrospinous hysteropexy that is not well characterized in the literature.

Uterus-Sparing Surgery: Outcomes of Transvaginal Uterosacral Ligament Hysteropexy

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Recently, there has been a paradigm shift toward uterine conservation during the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), specifically uterine prolapse. There are few reports on transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy (TULH). This study aimed to describe our surgical technique and outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective review and description of surgical technique. Anatomic outcome has been reported using the POP quantification system. Complications were segregated. A comparison of parametric continuous variables was performed using paired t test. Categoric variables were evaluated using the Pearson χ² test and the Fisher exact test. A p-value <.05 was considered significant.

SETTING

Teaching hospital.

PATIENTS

Forty patients who underwent TULH from 2009 to 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

TULH.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 40 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 56.1% had preoperative stage 3 prolapse. The median operative time was 116 minutes. The mean estimated blood loss was 158.5 mL. Transient ureteral obstruction occurred in 2 patients. The mean follow-up time was 17.2 months, and all patients had significant improvement of prolapse (p <.001). There was also an improvement in urinary incontinence and bladder storage symptoms (p <.001). None of the patients were reoperated on for recurrent POP.

CONCLUSION

TULH is an effective uterus-preserving surgical alternative for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse and provides good apical support. It is also associated with a low short-term recurrence and incidence of reoperation. TULH is a viable option for suitable patients with uterovaginal prolapse who desire uterine conservation.

Effect of Vaginal Mesh Hysteropexy vs Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension on Treatment Failure in Women With Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension is commonly performed for uterovaginal prolapse. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy is an alternative option.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and adverse events of vaginal hysterectomy with suture apical suspension and transvaginal mesh hysteropexy.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

At 9 clinical sites in the US Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, 183 postmenopausal women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse were enrolled in a randomized superiority clinical trial between April 2013 and February 2015. The study was designed for primary analysis when the last randomized participant reached 3 years of follow-up in February 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Ninety-three women were randomized to undergo vaginal mesh hysteropexy and 90 were randomized to undergo vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary treatment failure composite outcome (re-treatment of prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms) was evaluated with survival models. Secondary outcomes included operative outcomes and adverse events, and were evaluated with longitudinal models or contingency tables as appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 183 participants (mean age, 66 years) were randomized, 175 were included in the trial, and 169 (97%) completed the 3-year follow-up. The primary outcome was not significantly different among women who underwent hysteropexy vs hysterectomy through 48 months (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.38-1.02]; P = .06; 36-month adjusted failure incidence, 26% vs 38%). Mean (SD) operative time was lower in the hysteropexy group vs the hysterectomy group (111.5 [39.7] min vs 156.7 [43.9] min; difference, -45.2 [95% CI, -57.7 to -32.7]; P = <.001). Adverse events in the hysteropexy vs hysterectomy groups included mesh exposure (8% vs 0%), ureteral kinking managed intraoperatively (0% vs 7%), granulation tissue after 12 weeks (1% vs 11%), and suture exposure after 12 weeks (3% vs 21%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among women with symptomatic uterovaginal prolapse undergoing vaginal surgery, vaginal mesh hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension did not result in a significantly lower rate of the composite prolapse outcome after 3 years. However, imprecision in study results precludes a definitive conclusion, and further research is needed to assess whether vaginal mesh hysteropexy is more effective than vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01802281.

Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and success of uterus preserving sacrospinous hysteropexy as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse five years after surgery.

DESIGN

Observational follow-up of SAVE U (sacrospinous fixation versus vaginal hysterectomy in treatment of uterine prolapse ≥2) randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Four non-university teaching hospitals, the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

204 of 208 healthy women in the initial trial (2009-12) with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher requiring surgery and no history of pelvic floor surgery who had been randomised to sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. The women were followed annually for five years after surgery. This extended trial reports the results at five years.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Prespecified primary outcome evaluated at five year follow-up was recurrent prolapse of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) stage 2 or higher evaluated by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical failure (recurrent prolapse stage 2 or higher in apical, anterior, or posterior compartment), composite outcome of success (defined as no prolapse beyond the hymen, no bothersome bulge symptoms, and no repeat surgery or pessary use for recurrent prolapse), functional outcome, quality of life, repeat surgery, and sexual functioning.

RESULTS

At five years, surgical failure of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery occurred in one woman (1%) after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with eight women (7.8%) after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (difference-6.7%, 95% confidence interval -12.8% to-0.7%). A statistically significant difference was found in composite outcome of success between sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy (89/102 (87%) v 77/102 (76%). The other secondary outcomes did not differ. Time-to-event analysis at five years showed no differences between the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

At five year follow-up significantly less anatomical recurrences of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery were found after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. After hysteropexy a higher proportion of women had a composite outcome of success. Time-to-event analysis showed no differences in outcomes between the procedures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

trialregister.nl NTR1866.

Revisiting current treatment options for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse: a contemporary literature review

Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affect many women in their lifetime. In this review, we describe and evaluate the latest treatment options for SUI and POP, including the controversy around transvaginal mesh (TVM) use. Growing evidence supports the utilization of pelvic floor muscle training as first-line treatment for both SUI and POP. Vaginal pessaries continue to be an effective and reversible option to manage SUI and POP symptoms. The midurethral sling remains the gold standard for surgical treatment of SUI, although patients and clinicians should acknowledge the potentially serious complications of TVM. Burch urethropexy and pubovaginal sling offer good SUI cure and may be preferred in women wishing to avoid mesh implants; however, their operative morbidities and more challenging surgical approach may limit their use. Site-specific cystocele or rectocele repairs may be indicated for isolated anterior or posterior vaginal compartment prolapse; however, in women with more severe POP, evidence supports using a vaginal native-tissue repair involving apical suspension as the primary surgical technique. Although abdominal and laparoscopic sacrocolpopexies are both effective in treating POP, their failure and mesh complication rates increase with time. There is insufficient evidence to support the widespread use of uterine-preserving surgical POP repairs at present due to the lack of long-term data. Routine TVM use is not recommended in POP surgeries and should only be considered on a case-by-case basis by trained surgeons, primarily in women with multiple risk factors for POP recurrence. In general, clinicians should individualize SUI and POP treatment options for women based on their symptoms, comorbidities, and risk factors for mesh-related complications.

The resurrection of sacrospinous fixation: unilateral apical sling hysteropexy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

The apical compartment is a keystone in POP treatment. Sacrospinous fixation, suggested half a century ago, today is still one of the most popular and efficient methods of colpo-hysteropexy. However, it has specific side effects: chronic pain syndrome, dyspareunia and а high rate of cystocele de novo. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of unilateral sacrospinous hysteropexy with a synthetic apical sling combined with anterior subfascial colporrhaphy.

METHODS

Following the suggested technique, 174 women with anterior-apical prolapse underwent surgery. The follow-up period took 12 months. Pre- and postoperative examination included: urogynecological examination (POP-Q), uroflowmetry, ultrasound of the bladder and filling in of validated questionnaires (PFDI-20, PISQ-12).

RESULTS

The mean surgery time was 26 ± 7.84 min. No cases of damage of the bladder or rectum or of intraoperative clinically significant bleeding were noted. At the 12-month follow-up, the recurrence rate in the apical compartment was 0.7% (1/147) and in the anterior compartment 7.4% (11/147). The efficacy of the surgery reached 96.5%. During 12 months of follow-up, no cases of mesh exposure or chronic pelvic pain syndrome were detected. The incidence of dyspareunia de novo was observed in just one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

A unilateral sacrospinous fixation with a synthetic mesh (apical sling) combined with anterior subfascial colporrhaphy enhances the anatomical efficacy of surgery. It also helps to avoid specific side effects of traditional sacrospinous fixation.

Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study)

BACKGROUND

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to 40% of parous women which adversely affects the quality of life. During a life time, 20% of all women will undergo an operation. In general the guidelines advise a vaginal operation in case of uterine descent: hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament plication (VH), sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) or a modified Manchester operation (MM). In the last decade, renewed interest in uterus sparing techniques has been observed. Previous studies have shown non-inferiority between SSH and VH. Whether or not SSH and MM are comparable concerning anatomical and functional outcome is still unknown. The practical application of both operations is at least in The Netherlands a known cause of practice pattern variation (PPV). To reveal any difference between both techniques the SAM-study was designed.

METHODS

The SAM-study is a randomized controlled multicentre non-inferiority study which compares SSH and MM. Women with symptomatic POP in any stage, uterine descent and POP-Quantification (POP-Q) point D at ≤ minus 1 cm are eligible. The primary outcome is the composite outcome at two years of absence of prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment, the absence of bulge symptoms and absence of reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary outcomes are hospital parameters, surgery related morbidity/complications, pain perception, further treatments for prolapse or urinary incontinence, POP-Q anatomy in all compartments, quality-of-life, sexual function, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up takes place at 6 weeks, 12 and 24 months. Additionally at 12 weeks, 6 and 9 months cost-effectiveness will be assessed. Validated questionnaires will be used and gynaecological examination will be performed. Analysis will be performed following the intention-to-treat and per protocol principle. With a non-inferiority margin of 9% and an expected loss to follow-up of 10%, 424 women will be needed to prove non-inferiority with a confidence interval of 95%.

DISCUSSION

This study will evaluate the effectiveness and costs of SSH versus MM in women with primary POP. The evidence will show whether the existing PPV is detrimental and a de-implementation process regarding one of the operations is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register (NTR 6978, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 29 January 2018. Prospectively registered.