Literature DB >> 7623360

Manchester procedure vs. vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse. A comparison.

A G Thomas1, M L Brodman, P R Dottino, C Bodian, F Friedman, E Bogursky.   

Abstract

The Manchester procedure (MP) was compared with vaginal hysterectomy (VH) to determine whether any differences regarding patient demographics or operative or postoperative outcome could be found between the two techniques. A retrospective chart analysis was done comparing data from 88 consecutive MP to 105 randomly selected VH patients. All the operations were performed for uterine prolapse at Mount Sinai Hospital between 1984 and 1988. MP patients, when compared to VH patients, were more likely to be older and postmenopausal at the time of surgery and to have a private physician. MP patients were less likely to have significant medical illnesses than were VH patients. Statistically significant differences between MP and VH were found for operative time (100 vs 130 minutes, respectively) and blood loss (200 vs. 300 mL, respectively) (P < .001). This difference was not dependent on the performance of anterior or posterior repair. MP was associated with shorter operative time and less blood loss when compared to VH. This, coupled with apparently similar operative outcomes, suggests the use of MP as an alternative to VH in the absence of uterine pathology in appropriate candidates with uterine prolapse. Prospective, controlled, long-term studies comparing the operative results of these two procedures are needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7623360

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Reprod Med        ISSN: 0024-7758            Impact factor:   0.142


  12 in total

Review 1.  Uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: a review.

Authors:  Aparna Diwan; Charles R Rardin; Neeraj Kohli
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug

Review 2.  Vaginal surgery for uterine descent; which options do we have? A review of the literature.

Authors:  Viviane Dietz; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; C Huub van der Vaart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-12-16

Review 3.  Management options for women with uterine prolapse interested in uterine preservation.

Authors:  Nathan Kow; Howard B Goldman; Beri Ridgeway
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 4.  Uterine-preserving POP surgery.

Authors:  Robert Gutman; Christopher Maher
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Is hysterectomy or the use of graft necessary for the reconstructive surgery for uterine prolapse?

Authors:  Myung Jae Jeon; Hyun Joo Jung; Hyun Jung Choi; Sei Kwang Kim; Sang Wook Bai
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-10-10

6.  A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent.

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

Review 7.  Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sofia Andrade de Oliveira; Marcelo C M Fonseca; Maria A T Bortolini; Manoel J B C Girão; Matheus T Roque; Rodrigo A Castro
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 8.  The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review.

Authors:  Cæcilie Krogsgaard Tolstrup; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-08-02       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication.

Authors:  Tiny A de Boer; Alfredo L Milani; Kirsten B Kluivers; Mariella I J Withagen; Mark E Vierhout
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2009-08-11

Review 10.  Native tissue repair for central compartment prolapse: a narrative review.

Authors:  Dorit Paz-Levy; David Yohay; Joerg Neymeyer; Ranit Hizkiyahu; Adi Y Weintraub
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-05-21       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.