Uterus-sparing vaginolaparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse

Obstetric outcomes after uterus-sparing surgery for uterine prolapse: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Up-to-date there are no guidelines about uterus-sparing prolapse repair procedures for women desiring childbearing. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate obstetrical outcomes after uterus-sparing apical prolapse repair in terms of pregnancy rate, obstetrical adverse outcomes and delivery mode according to the type of procedure. To identify potentially eligible studies, we searched PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science (up to April 15, 2020). Case reports, reviews, letters to Editor, book chapters, guidelines, Cochrane reviews, and expert opinions were excluded. Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria and were incorporated into the final assessment, which included 1518 surgical procedures. In total 151 patients got pregnant after prolapse surgical repair, for a resulting pregnancy raw rate of 9.9 %. Overall, adverse obstetric outcomes resulted low, rating 4.6 %. Manchester procedure resulted associated with the highest risk of adverse obstetrical outcomes and preterm premature rupture of membranes (p < 0.0001). After exclusion of Manchester procedure, sacrohysteropexy was found to be associated with higher risk of obstetrical adverse outcomes compared to native-tissue procedures (p = 0.04). Native-tissue surgery might represent the most cautious option for women wishing for pregnancy.