Sofia Andrade de Oliveira1,2, Marcelo C M Fonseca3, Maria A T Bortolini3, Manoel J B C Girão3, Matheus T Roque4, Rodrigo A Castro3. 1. Department of Gynecology, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. sofia.gineco@gmail.com. 2. Departament of Life Sciencies, Bahia State University, Rua Silveira Martins, 2555, Cabula, Salvador, BA, 41.150-000, Brazil. sofia.gineco@gmail.com. 3. Department of Gynecology, Federal University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Surgery, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The efficacy and safety of removing or preserving the uterus during reconstructive pelvic surgery is a matter of debate. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared hysteropreservation and hysterectomy in the management of uterine prolapse. PubMed, Medline, SciELO and LILACS databases were searched from inception until January 2017. We selected only randomized controlled trials and observational cohort prospective comparative studies. Primary outcomes were recurrence and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes were: operative time, blood loss, visceral injury, voiding dysfunction, duration of catheterization, length of hospital stay, mesh exposure, dyspareunia, malignant neoplasia and quality of life. RESULTS: Eleven studies (six randomized and five non-randomized) were included involving 910 patients (462 in the hysteropreservation group and 448 in the hysterectomy group). Pooled data including all surgical techniques showed no difference between the groups regarding recurrence of uterine prolapse (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.88-3.10; p = 0.12), but the risk of recurrence following hysterectomy was lower when the vaginal route was used with native tissue repair (RR 10.61; 95% CI 1.26-88.94; p = 0.03). Hysterectomy was associated with a lower reoperation rate for any prolapse compartment than hysteropreservation (RR 2.05; 95% CI 1.13-3.74; p = 0.02). Hysteropreservation was associated with a shorter operative time (mean difference -12.43 min; 95% CI -14.11 to -10.74 ; p < 0.00001) and less blood loss (mean difference -60.42 ml; 95% CI -71.31 to -49.53 ml; p < 0.00001). Other variables were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the rate of recurrence of uterine prolapse was not lower but the rate of reoperation for prolapse was lower following hysterectomy, while operative time was shorter and blood loss was less with hysteropreservation. The limitations of this analysis were the inclusion of nonrandomized studies and the variety of surgical techniques. The results should be interpreted with caution due to potential biases.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The efficacy and safety of removing or preserving the uterus during reconstructive pelvic surgery is a matter of debate. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared hysteropreservation and hysterectomy in the management of uterine prolapse. PubMed, Medline, SciELO and LILACS databases were searched from inception until January 2017. We selected only randomized controlled trials and observational cohort prospective comparative studies. Primary outcomes were recurrence and reoperation rates. Secondary outcomes were: operative time, blood loss, visceral injury, voiding dysfunction, duration of catheterization, length of hospital stay, mesh exposure, dyspareunia, malignant neoplasia and quality of life. RESULTS: Eleven studies (six randomized and five non-randomized) were included involving 910 patients (462 in the hysteropreservation group and 448 in the hysterectomy group). Pooled data including all surgical techniques showed no difference between the groups regarding recurrence of uterine prolapse (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.88-3.10; p = 0.12), but the risk of recurrence following hysterectomy was lower when the vaginal route was used with native tissue repair (RR 10.61; 95% CI 1.26-88.94; p = 0.03). Hysterectomy was associated with a lower reoperation rate for any prolapse compartment than hysteropreservation (RR 2.05; 95% CI 1.13-3.74; p = 0.02). Hysteropreservation was associated with a shorter operative time (mean difference -12.43 min; 95% CI -14.11 to -10.74 ; p < 0.00001) and less blood loss (mean difference -60.42 ml; 95% CI -71.31 to -49.53 ml; p < 0.00001). Other variables were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the rate of recurrence of uterine prolapse was not lower but the rate of reoperation for prolapse was lower following hysterectomy, while operative time was shorter and blood loss was less with hysteropreservation. The limitations of this analysis were the inclusion of nonrandomized studies and the variety of surgical techniques. The results should be interpreted with caution due to potential biases.
Authors: Susanne D Thys; Anne- Lotte Coolen; Ingrid R Martens; Herman P Oosterbaan; Jan- Paul W R Roovers; Ben- Willem Mol; Marlies Y Bongers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Dirk de Ridder; Robert M Freeman; Steven E Swift; Bary Berghmans; Joseph Lee; Ash Monga; Eckhard Petri; Diaa E Rizk; Peter K Sand; Gabriel N Schaer Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2009-11-25 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Nicole B Korbly; Nadine C Kassis; Meadow M Good; Monica L Richardson; Nicole M Book; Sallis Yip; Docile Saguan; Carey Gross; Janelle Evans; Vrishali V Lopes; Heidi S Harvie; Vivian W Sung Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-08-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: David M B Rosen; Anshumala Shukla; Gregory M Cario; Mark A Carlton; Danny Chou Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Sang Wook Bai; Euy Hyuk Kim; Jong Seung Shin; Sei Kwang Kim; Ki Hyun Park; Dong Han Lee Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2005-02-28 Impact factor: 2.759
Authors: Sascha F M Schulten; Rosa A Enklaar; Kirsten B Kluivers; Sanne A L van Leijsen; Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Eddy M M Adang; Jeroen van Bavel; Heleen van Dongen; Maaike B E Gerritse; Iris van Gestel; G G Alec Malmberg; Ronald J C Mouw; Deliana A van Rumpt-van de Geest; Wilbert A Spaans; Annemarie van der Steen; Jelle Stekelenburg; E Stella M Tiersma; Anneke C Verkleij-Hagoort; Astrid Vollebregt; Chantal B M Wingen; Mirjam Weemhoff; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 2.809