Kate V Meriwether1, Danielle D Antosh2, Cedric K Olivera3, Shunaha Kim-Fine4, Ethan M Balk5, Miles Murphy6, Cara L Grimes7, Ambereen Sleemi8, Ruchira Singh9, Alexis A Dieter10, Catrina C Crisp11, David D Rahn12. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY. Electronic address: kate.meriwether@louisville.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York University, New York, NY. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 5. Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI. 6. The Institute for Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, North Wales, PA. 7. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY. 8. International Medical Response, New York, NY. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Florida Health, Jacksonville, FL. 10. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. 11. TriHealth, Cincinnati, OH. 12. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the literature on apical pelvic organ prolapse surgery with uterine preservation compared with prolapse surgeries including hysterectomy and provide evidence-based guidelines. DATA SOURCES: The sources for our data were MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to January 2017. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We accepted randomized and nonrandomized studies of uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries compared with those involving hysterectomy. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, efficacy outcomes, and adverse events, and they were individually and collectively assessed for methodological quality. If 3 or more studies compared the same surgeries and reported the same outcome, a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: We screened 4467 abstracts and identified 94 eligible studies, 53 comparing uterine preservation to hysterectomy in prolapse surgery. Evidence was of moderate quality overall. Compared with hysterectomy plus mesh sacrocolpopexy, uterine preservation with sacrohysteropexy reduces mesh exposure, operative time, blood loss, and surgical cost without differences in prolapse recurrence. Compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension, uterine preservation in the form of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy improves the C point and vaginal length on the pelvic organ prolapse quantification exam, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain and functioning, and hospital stay, but open abdominal sacrohysteropexy worsens bothersome urinary symptoms, operative time, and quality of life. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy (vs with hysterectomy) decreases mesh exposure, reoperation for mesh exposure, postoperative bleeding, and estimated blood loss and improves posterior pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement. Transvaginal uterosacral or sacrospinous hysteropexy or the Manchester procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue suspension both showed improved operative time and estimated blood loss and no worsening of prolapse outcomes with uterine preservation. However, there is a significant lack of data on prolapse outcomes >3 years after surgery, the role of uterine preservation in obliterative procedures, and longer-term risk of uterine pathology after uterine preservation. CONCLUSION: Uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries improve operating time, blood loss, and risk of mesh exposure compared with similar surgical routes with concomitant hysterectomy and do not significantly change short-term prolapse outcomes. Surgeons may offer uterine preservation as an option to appropriate women who desire this choice during apical prolapse repair.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to systematically review the literature on apical pelvic organ prolapse surgery with uterine preservation compared with prolapse surgeries including hysterectomy and provide evidence-based guidelines. DATA SOURCES: The sources for our data were MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to January 2017. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We accepted randomized and nonrandomized studies of uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries compared with those involving hysterectomy. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, efficacy outcomes, and adverse events, and they were individually and collectively assessed for methodological quality. If 3 or more studies compared the same surgeries and reported the same outcome, a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: We screened 4467 abstracts and identified 94 eligible studies, 53 comparing uterine preservation to hysterectomy in prolapse surgery. Evidence was of moderate quality overall. Compared with hysterectomy plus mesh sacrocolpopexy, uterine preservation with sacrohysteropexy reduces mesh exposure, operative time, blood loss, and surgical cost without differences in prolapse recurrence. Compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension, uterine preservation in the form of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy improves the C point and vaginal length on the pelvic organ prolapse quantification exam, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain and functioning, and hospital stay, but open abdominal sacrohysteropexy worsens bothersome urinary symptoms, operative time, and quality of life. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy (vs with hysterectomy) decreases mesh exposure, reoperation for mesh exposure, postoperative bleeding, and estimated blood loss and improves posterior pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement. Transvaginal uterosacral or sacrospinous hysteropexy or the Manchester procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue suspension both showed improved operative time and estimated blood loss and no worsening of prolapse outcomes with uterine preservation. However, there is a significant lack of data on prolapse outcomes >3 years after surgery, the role of uterine preservation in obliterative procedures, and longer-term risk of uterine pathology after uterine preservation. CONCLUSION: Uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries improve operating time, blood loss, and risk of mesh exposure compared with similar surgical routes with concomitant hysterectomy and do not significantly change short-term prolapse outcomes. Surgeons may offer uterine preservation as an option to appropriate women who desire this choice during apical prolapse repair.
Authors: Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-02-11 Impact factor: 2.894