Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Literature is lacking strong evidence about comparisons of efficacy and quality of life-related outcomes between laparoscopic total and/or supracervical hysterectomy (LTH/LSCH) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy (LSH).

OBJECTIVE

To summarize and compare available data on this topic providing a useful clinical tool in the treatment decision process.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We performed a systematic research of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Gooogle Scholar.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared at least one efficacy outcome (objective or subjective outcome) between LTH/LSCH with LSC and LSH. Data on surgery-related morbidities were also extracted where available.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of nine observational studies. LTH/LSCH with LSH was associated with a significantly higher objective success (apical compartment OR 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-28.33; I2 = 0%; P = 0.001; anterior compartment OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.26-4.30; I2 = 12%; P = 0.007) and subjective success (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.42-7.17; I2 = 39%; P = 0.005). No differences were found regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications, sexual dysfunction, and stress urinary incontinence rate after surgery. Hysteropexy showed shorter operative time and shorter hospital length with a pool mean difference of 27.37 min (95% CI 18.04-32.71; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001) and 0.7 days (95% CI 0.24-1.17; I2 = 75%; P = 0.003), respectively. Concurrent hysterectomy was not associated with a higher rate of mesh-related complications (P = 0.53). No major differences were found regarding recurrence and reoperation rate (P = 0.10 and P = 0.93, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

LTH/LSCH with LSC has better objective and subjective outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery than LSH alone, especially for apical and anterior compartments, and is not associated with higher postoperative sexual dysfunction and mesh-related complications. Adequate preoperative counseling is highly recommended in patients who desire uterine preservation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024537270.

Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine-sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal mesh use have been largely abandoned.

OBJECTIVES

To provide up-to-date evidence by examining only studies investigating techniques currently in use for POP repair.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing surgical procedures for POP with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Studies describing open abdominal approaches or transvaginal mesh implantation were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on extracted data reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included. Hysterectomy and uterine-sparing procedures did not differ in reoperation rate (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.74-1.17), intraoperative major (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.79-2.26) and minor (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.79-2.4) complications, postoperative major (OR 1.42; 95% CI 0.85-2.37) and minor (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.9-1.53) complications, and objective (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.92-2.07) or subjective (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.8-1.88) success. Uterine preservation was associated with a shorter operative time (-22.7 min; 95% CI -16.92 to -28.51 min), shorter hospital stay (-0.35 days, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.65 days), and less blood loss (-61.7 mL; 95% CI -31.3 to -92.1 mL). When only studies using a laparoscopic approach for both arms were considered, no differences were observed in investigated outcomes between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No major differences were observed in POP outcomes between procedures with and without concomitant hysterectomy. The decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be tailored on individual factors.

Pilsner Modification of Mesh Sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS): An Initial Report on Safety and Efficacy

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

It is reported that up to 60% of women would prefer to spare their uterus during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair surgery. A reliable hysteropexy technique is therefore crucial. We aimed to describe the safety profile and initial core patient-reported and clinical outcomes of the Pilsner modification of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy (PiMMS) in comparison with the laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy technique (standard laparoscopic sacrohysterocolpopexy [sLSH]) previously used in our unit.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single tertiary referral urogynecological center. All patients who underwent laparoscopic mesh sacrohysterocolpopexy between 1 January 2015, and 31 January 2022 were included in the study. Follow-up clinical, patient-reported, and imaging outcomes at the 12-month follow-up time point are presented.

RESULTS

A total of 87 patients were included. Of these, 49 (56.3%) and 38 (43.7%) underwent sLSH and PiMMS respectively. Low numbers of perioperative complications were found in both groups with no mesh-related complications reported following PiMMS up to 12 months postoperatively. There were no apical compartment failures in either group. There were 8 (17.0%) vs 1 (2.7%) anterior compartment failures (Ba ≤ -1) in the sLSH and PiMMS groups respectively (p = 0.07) at 12 months. At the 1-year follow-up, 42 (89.4%) patients reported a Patient Global Impression of Improvement score of ≤ 2 in the sLSH groups compared with 35 (94.6%) patients following PiMMS.

CONCLUSIONS

The PiMMS technique seems to have comparable safety profile and patient-reported outcomes with the sLSH technique. However, there is a trend toward reduced anterior compartment failures with this modification. The findings of this preliminary report need to be re-evaluated in a well-powered prospective study.

Pathological Insights on Polypropylene Mesh Complications From Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy: A Case Series

Background The use of polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is a common treatment for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Despite its widespread application, postoperative complications such as mesh pain and infection sometimes necessitate the removal of the mesh. However, it remains unclear in which cases mesh removal is warranted. Our research focused on the pathological changes at the sacral fixation point of the mesh. We sought to evaluate the pathological alterations of the sacral mesh removed through an innovative approach of transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (vNOTES). Methods This retrospective study included nine patients who underwent mesh removal surgery at the Yokosuka Urogynecology and Urology Clinic in 2023. Extraction surgery was performed using vNOTES with the GelPoint Access Platform (Applied Medical JAPAN HEADQUARTERS, Tokyo, Japan). Non-ablative Erbium YAG and Neodymium YAG lasers (RenovaLase, SP Dynamis; Fotona d.o.o., Ljubljana, Slovenia) were utilized for persistent stress urinary incontinence, fecal incontinence, vaginal erosion, and bleeding after surgery. Patients were categorized based on mesh fixation conditions, including unintended mesh overlap (Group I), excessive traction (Group II), and signs of mesh aging (Group III). This categorization helped to understand the distinct pathological outcomes associated with each condition. Results Pathological findings from the mesh removed via vNOTES varied significantly across the groups. In Group I, characteristic large vacuole formation and accumulation of atypical giant cells were observed, attributed to mesh overlap. Group II presented with vacuole formation, fiber degradation, and tissue destruction as a result of excessive mesh traction. In Group III, the aging of the mesh was marked by cracks in the surrounding tissues and granuloma formation. These detailed observations provide crucial insights into the underlying causes of mesh-related pain and other complications, highlighting the complexity of bodily responses to mesh implants. Conclusion This study demonstrated the effectiveness of vNOTES for polypropylene mesh removal in patients with post-LSC complications, resulting in significant pain reduction. Pathological analysis revealed that mesh-related issues stem from the surgical techniques, mesh properties, and long-term bodily reactions. These findings provide valuable insights for improving mesh design and POP treatment strategies. Despite the technical challenges, vNOTES is recommended for mesh removal in patients with pain. Additionally, the combination of UEL, VEL, targeted laser irradiation, AEL, and Nd:YAG laser treatments showed promising results in managing post-mesh removal complications such as stress urinary incontinence, vaginal erosion, bleeding, and fecal incontinence, offering hope for improved patient outcomes.

The Pros and Cons of Hystero-preservation on Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery

In the "boat at the dock" theory, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) may happen when the ropes (uterine supportive ligaments) break and/or the water level drops (pelvic floor muscles). Thus, it causes the boat (uterus and other pelvic organs) to slip from normal position and protrude out of the vagina. Surgical intervention with or without hysterectomy (hystero-preservation) is the most effective treatment for POP. Both hysterectomy and hystero-preservation for POP had a high anatomic and clinical cure rate. There is an increasing trend of hystero-preservation for POP during the past decades. The choices of either hysterectomy or hystero-preservation depend on the surgical factors, psychosocial factors, self-esteem and sexuality factors, and surgeon factors. Pelvic reconstructive surgery, either hysterectomy or hystero-preservation, can be performed via different approaches, including abdominal, laparoscopic, and vaginal routes, with native tissue or with mesh. This review will elucidate their related pros and cons, with further discussion and comparison of hystero-preservation via different routes.

A systematic review of the surgical management of apical pelvic organ prolapse

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

This systematic review (PROSPERO:CRD42022275789) is aimed at comparing qualitatively the success, recurrence, and complication rates of sacrocolpopexy with concomitant hysterectomy, hysteropexy, sacrospinous fixation (SSF) with and without vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and uterosacral fixation (USF) with and without VH.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for studies published from 2011, on women with apical pelvic organ prolapse requiring surgical interventions. Risk of bias was assessed via the National Institutes of Health study quality assessment tool. The primary outcomes are the success and recurrence rate of each technique, for ≥12 months' follow-up. Findings were summarised qualitatively.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies were included. Overall significant findings for a high success and low recurrence rate are summarised as: minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (MISC) is superior to abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC); sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) is superior to USF + VH, which is superior to uterosacral hysteropexy and mesh hysteropexy (MHP). Significant findings related to complications include: MISC recorded a lower overall complication rate than ASC except in mesh exposure; USF + VH tends to perform better than SSHP and SSF, with SSHP performing better than MHP in faecal incontinence and overactive bladder rates.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence to conclude that hysterectomy is superior to uterine-sparing approaches. MISC should be considered over ASC given similar efficacy and reduced complications. Superiority of MHP is unproven against native tissue hysteropexy. Further studies under standardised settings are required for direct comparisons between the surgical management methods.

Robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy vs robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy in women with primary advanced apical prolapse: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the anatomic and clinical outcomes of robot-assisted sacrohysteropexy (RASH) against robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy (RASC) for the treatment of primary advanced apical prolapse.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all robot-assisted pelvic organ prolapse surgeries for primary advanced apical prolapse (stage ≥II) between January 2011 and May 2021 at an academic tertiary hospital. Surgical outcomes and pelvic organ function were evaluated using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantitative (POP-Q) stage and validated questionnaires (POPDI-6) during preoperative and postoperative 12-month follow-up evaluations. All data were obtained from electronic medical records.

RESULTS

A total of 2368 women underwent surgery for apical prolapse repair, and 18 women underwent either RASH (n = 11) or RASC (n = 7). Compared to the RASC group, the RASH group was significantly younger, premenopausal, and less parous. Preoperative prolapse stage, operative time, estimated blood loss, and hospitalization length was comparable between the groups. No intraoperative complications were observed. All women had a median follow-up duration of 24 months (range: 12-108 months). During the 12-month follow-up period, women in the RASH group reported higher satisfaction with the surgery than those in the RASC group (100% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.137). The mesh exposure rate was significantly higher in the RASC group (3/7, 42.9%) than in the RASH group (0/11, 0%) ( p = 0.043), which was found at 12 to 36 months postoperatively and was successfully managed with vaginal estrogen cream. In the RASH group, one woman required reoperation with anterior colporrhaphy for recurrent anterior prolapse at 60 months postoperatively. The apical success rate was 100% at one year postoperatively, without apical recurrence in either group during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

RASH represents an effective and feasible option for the surgical treatment of advanced primary apical prolapse in women who desire uterine preservation and have a significantly lower risk of mesh erosion than RASC.

Long-term development of surgical outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with anterior and posterior mesh extension

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Long-term durability and functional outcome of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) remains to be confirmed. We set out to assess the development of surgical outcome in women with increasing minimal follow-up.

METHODS

All women after LSH with anterior and posterior mesh extension operated for advanced apical uterine prolapse at Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire clinic from July 2005 to June 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Last known follow-up information was used for the analysis and allocation into groups. The surgical success was defined as no prolapse beyond hymen, no symptomatic recurrence or no retreatment. Functional outcome was evaluated from validated questionnaires and presence of pelvic floor disorders. The outcomes were compared with preoperative state using chi-square and Fisher's test; p < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

In total, 270 patients after LSH with a follow-up of up to 14.5 years were enrolled and divided into groups according to their last follow-up length: ≥ 1 year 242, ≥ 3 years 112, ≥ 5 years 76, ≥ 7 years 45 and ≥ 10 years 18 women. Increase of minimal follow-up was associated with gradual decrease in surgical success. Rates of stress urinary incontinence were unchanged by the surgery, while anal incontinence and constipation rates decreased significantly; 14.5% of women were operated on for SUI in the follow-up. The PFDI-20, PFIQ-7 and VAS bother scores decreased significantly regardless of minimal follow-up length.

CONCLUSIONS

LSH with anterior and posterior mesh extension is a safe, effective and durable surgery with a positive long-term effect on quality of life. Although the surgical success gradually decreases, LSH remains a surgical success in most women.

Comparison of Different Laparoscopic Sacropexy Procedures for Advanced Uterine Prolapse: A Retrospective Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term outcomes and complications of 3 different variants of laparoscopic sacropexy.

DESIGN

Single-center retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A tertiary university hospital.

PATIENTS

A total of 483 patients with advanced uterine prolapse who underwent laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH), laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy with concomitant laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy (LSCH + LSC), or total laparoscopic hysterectomy with concomitant laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (TLH + LSC).

INTERVENTIONS

Demographic data, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification scores, questionnaire results, surgical conditions, postoperative outcomes, and complications were all extracted from medical and follow-up records.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Between April 2012 and December 2020, 277 women underwent LSH, 95 women underwent LSCH + LSC, and 111 women underwent TLH + LSC. LSH procedures were associated with statistically significantly least blood loss and least postoperative hospital days and catheterization days (all p <.001). During the median follow-up of 32 months (13-117 months), analysis of the data revealed notable anatomic correction in all groups regarding Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification measurements (p <.001), and the anatomic cure rate showed no significant difference among these 3 groups (p = .273). No statistically significant differences were detected for prolapse recurrence (p = .171) and functional improvements among these groups. Neither intraoperative injuries (p = .098) nor total postoperative complications (p = .218) differed considerably, whereas the rate of severe postoperative complications (p <.001) including mesh exposure (p = .004) was significantly higher in the TLH + LSC group than that in the other groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LSH is the appropriate choice for women with uterine prolapse without contraindications for uterine preservation. For patients with benign uterine lesions and a normal cervix, LSCH + LSC is a safer approach that provides similar anatomic results and improved quality of life scores that are similar to those of TLH + LSC. For patients with lesions in the uterus and cervix, TLH + LSC should be selected.

Role of Hysteropexy in the Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss considerations for hysteropexy for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and summarize available literature comparing various hysteropexy techniques to analogous procedures involving hysterectomy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hysteropexy for apical POP has increased in popularity in recent years, although anatomic factors and gynecologic cancer risk must be taken into account. Native tissue hysteropexy options include the LeFort colpocleisis, sacrospinous hysteropexy, and uterosacral hysteropexy. Although vaginal mesh was banned by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019, abdominal mesh sacrohysteropexy done either open or laparoscopically remains an option in the USA. Overall, short-term prolapse outcomes appear to be comparable between uterus-sparing approaches and hysterectomy, with less blood loss and shorter operating room time observed with the uterine-sparing approaches, although long-term outcome data remains variable and limited. Uterine-sparing apical POP repair may be offered to appropriate patients without certain risk factors, although longer-term data will be required to evaluate durability.

Robot-assisted sacro(hystero)colpopexy with anterior and posterior mesh placement: impact on lower bowel tract function and clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up

Background:

Robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSCP) is an established option for the treatment of apical, anterior, and proximal posterior compartment pelvic organ prolapses (POP). However, there is lack of evidence investigating how lower bowel tract symptoms (LBTS) may change after RSCP.

Methods:

Data from consecutive patients treated with RSCP for stage 3 or higher POP from 2012 to 2019 at a single tertiary referral center with at least 1 year of follow-up were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. RSCP was performed following a standardized technique which always employed both anterior and posterior hand-shaped meshes. Outcomes were collected at follow-up and analyzed. LBTS were evaluated through the Wexner questionnaire.

Results:

Overall, 114 women underwent RSCP. Eleven were excluded for missing data, whereas 12 had insufficient follow-up. Thus, 91 (79.8%) patients were included in this cohort. Median follow-up was 42 [interquartile range (IQR), 19–62] months. Mean age was 65 ± 10 years. In our series, RSCP was mainly performed for anterior and apical/medium stage 3 POP (in 95.6% of patients). Anatomic success rate of RSCP was 97.8%, with 89 patients with POP stage 0–1 at 12-month follow-up. Two patients (2.2%) experienced POP recurrence and were treated with redo-SCP. No patient experienced clinically significant posterior vaginal wall prolapse after RSCP. When analyzing LBTS, there was no significant change in postoperative total Wexner’s score as compared to the preoperative value ( p > 0.05). However, the manual assistance subscore was statistically significantly lower within the first-year follow-up ( p = 0.04), but it spontaneously improved during the follow-up ( p = 0.12).

Conclusion:

RSCP with simultaneous placement of both anterior and posterior mesh is safe and successful to treat high-stage POP in carefully selected patients. Of note, LBTS appear unaffected by posterior mesh placement, supporting its routine use to prevent posterior POP recurrence. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP-UP study)

Background

Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH + LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH + LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH + LSC or TLH + LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic.

Results

In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH + LSC n = 208 and TLH + LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p = 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006).

Conclusion

LSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12905-021-01208-5.

Comparison of treatment outcomes for native tissue repair and sacrocolpopexy as apical suspension procedures at the time of hysterectomy for uterine prolapse

Concomitant apical suspension should be performed at the time of hysterectomy for uterine prolapse to reduce the risk of recurrent prolapse. Native tissue repair (NTR) and sacrocolpopexy (SCP) are commonly used apical suspension procedures; however, it remains unclear which one is preferred. This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes of NTR and SCP in terms of surgical failure, complication and reoperation rates. Surgical failure was defined as the presence of vaginal bulge symptoms, any prolapse beyond the hymen, or retreatment for prolapse. This retrospective cohort study included 523 patients who had undergone NTR (n = 272) or SCP (n = 251) along with hysterectomy for uterine prolapse and who had at least 4-month follow-up visits. During the median 3-year follow-up period, the surgical failure rate was higher in the NTR group (21.3% vs 6.4%, P < 0.01), with a low rate of retreatment in both groups. Overall complication rates were similar, but complications requiring surgical correction under anesthesia were more common in the SCP group (7.2% vs 0.4%, P < 0.01). As a result, the total reoperation rate was significantly higher in the SCP group (8.0% vs 2.6%, P = 0.02). Taken together, NTR may be a preferred option for apical suspension when hysterectomy is performed for uterine prolapse.

Comparison of patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation, laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy and abdominal hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy in terms of postoperative quality of life and sexual function

AIM

To investigate whether there is a significant difference among the patients who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation (VH + SSLF), laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy (LH + SCP) and abdominal hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy (AH + SCP) in terms of sexual function and quality of life.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Sixty-five patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy with sacrospinous ligament fixation (VH + SSLF), laparoscopic hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy (LH + SCP) or abdominal hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy (AH + SCP) participated in the study. The Quality of Life Scale and Sexual Function Scale Index (PISQ-12) were used to see whether there is a significant difference among the three groups (VH + SSLF, LH + SCP, AH + SCP) at least 1 year after surgery. The Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) Scale consisting of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI-6), Urinary Distress Inventory (UDI-6), and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory (CRADI-8) was used to evaluate the functional outcomes.

RESULTS

The participants had a mean age of 60 ± 8.79 years. The mean PFDI-20 score in the VH + SSLF groups is higher than that in the AH + SCP group (p = 0.047). There is no significant difference among three VH + SSLF, LH + SCP and AH + SCP groups regarding scores of POPDI-6, UDI-6, CRADI-8, and PISQ-12.

CONCLUSION

In the present study, it was concluded that AH + SCP group had a higher quality of life than the VH + SSLF group did while the sexual function was not affected significantly by the vaginal or abdominal surgical procedures. The pelvic surgeon should skillfully choose different prolapse surgical techniques to tailor the surgical treatment to the patient's needs.

Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey)

Background

The aim of this study was to explore the personal views of female gynecologists regarding the management of POP with a particular focus on the issue of uterine sparing surgery.

Methods

A questionnaire based survey of practicing female gynecologists in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Results

A total of 140 female gynecologists from 81 units responded to our questionnaire. The majority of respondents stated they would rely on a urogynecologist to aid them with their choice of POP management options. The most preferred options for POP management were sacrocolpopexy and physiotherapy. Almost 2/3 of respondents opted for a hysterectomy together with POP surgery, if they were menopausal, even if the anatomical outcome was similar to uterine sparing POP surgery. Moreover, 81.4% of respondents, who initially opted for a uterine sparing procedure, changed their mind if the anatomical success of POP surgery with concomitant hysterectomy was superior. Discussing uterine cancer risk in relation to other organs had a less significant impact on their choices.

Conclusions

The majority of female gynecologists in our study opted for hysterectomy if they were postmenopausal at the time of POP surgery. However, variation in information provision had an impact on their choice.