European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review
Introduction
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is defined as a descent of one or more of the pelvic organs, including the uterus, vaginal cuff, urinary bladder, urethra, bowel, and rectum down through the vagina canal [1]. It is a major gynecological health problem that affects negatively women's quality of life and sexual activity all over the world [2]. Approximately 50% of all women will develop POP, but not all of them will seek medical care for clinical evaluation, so the exact prevalence is difficult to estimate [3]. There is wide variation of how often POP is reported, however almost all authors agree that the incidence of POP is increasing, which is most likely due to increased life expectancies around the world, as aging is an important risk factor for POP. POP is found in approximately 31% of women aged 50–59 years and 50% of women aged 80 years or older [4], [5]. Other risk factors most commonly associated with POP are obesity, repeated vaginal childbirth, and high parity. Other less directly associated factors include the prolongation of the second stage of labor, repeatedly carrying heavy objects, forceps delivery, high infant birth weight, and early age of first delivery. These factors lead to weakness in the connective tissue of the pelvic floor, which eventually can lead to prolapse [4], [6], [7], [8].
The management options for POP include surgical intervention, pelvic floor exercises and physical therapy, and vaginal pessaries. Surgical interventions can further be divided into obliterative surgery (such as colpocleisis) and reconstructive surgeries which may or may not include mesh augmentation or hysterectomy as part of the procedure [9], [10]. About 11.1% of women with POP will eventually opt for surgical intervention to correct the POP or related stress urinary incontinence [11]. The decision will depend on patient symptomatology, desire for sexual function, impact on the quality of life, and medical comorbidities. The decision of whether to combine a reconstructive surgery with a hysterectomy is based on many factors. The desire to retain fertility is the main contraindication for hysterectomy. Hysterectomy is more appropriate with the presence of cervical dysplasia, abnormal uterine bleeding, large fibroids, or uterine anomalies [9], [10]. However, hysterectomy without a reconstructive procedure is associated with frequent apical prolapse rates as it does not address the apical support [12]. For many reasons, reconstructive procedures that include preservation options have become more popular and more sought after by women in recent years [13]. The superiority of uterine preservation for surgical repair of POP when compared to surgeries including vaginal hysterectomy is still unclear [14]. For this reason, we sought to perform a systematic review and meta analysis to compare the outcomes and safety of different surgical procedures to repair POP while sparing the uterus, compared with those same procedures that include hysterectomy.
Section snippets
Material and methods
We followed the PRISMA statement guidelines [1], [15] during the preparation of this systematic review and meta-analysis and performed all steps in a strict accordance to the Cochrane handbook of systematic reviews of intervention [2].
Search results and characteristics of included studies
Our search retrieved 1521 unique citations from searching electronic databases. Following title and abstract screening, 34 full-text articles were retrieved and screened for eligibility. Of them, 20 articles were excluded, and 14 studies (n = 1285 patients) were reviewed in detail and included in this meta-analysis (PRISMA flow diagram; Fig. 1). All of the included studies were conducted between 2004 and 2020. With regard to the surgical approach, six studies utilized the open abdominal or
Discussion
Our analysis found that uterine sparing surgical procedures for POP had a significantly shorter operative time when compared to procedures that included removal of the uterus. In the subgroups analyses, we found that the vaginal approach had significantly shorter operative time in the two groups, however, the abdominal and laparoscopic approach showed no significant difference whether or not the uterus was removed. Nevertheless, no significant difference was found between the two groups
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This Manuscript has been reviewed by the institutional IRB committee at Marchand Institute and was found to be exempt from IRB review. (January 2021). Data used was exempt from consent to participate or publish secondary to the nature of the study being a systematic review, retrospectively looking at previously published data.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The Marchand Institute for Minimally Invasive Surgery would like to acknowledge the efforts of all of the students, researchers, residents and fellows at the institute who put their time and effort into these projects without compensation, only for the betterment of women’s health. We firmly assure them that the future of medicine belongs to them.
References (44)
- et al.
Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence
Obstet Gynecol
(1997) - et al.
Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(2013) - et al.
An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP)
Neurourol Urodyn.
(2016) - Avcıbay Vurgeç B, Kızılkaya Beji N. İleri Evre Pelvik Organ Proplapsusu Olan Kadınlarda Yaşam Kalitesi Ve Cinsel Yaşam....
- et al.
Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct.
(2013) - et al.
Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse
Int Braz J Urol.
(2020) - et al.
The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population
Int Urogynecol J.
(2009) - et al.
Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors
Int Urogynecol J.
(2011) - et al.
Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: a population based study in Tanzanian rural community
PLoS One
(2018) - et al.
Pelvic organ prolapse in Northwest Ethiopia: a population-based study
Int Urogynecol J
(2020)
Management of uterine prolapse: is hysterectomy necessary?
Obstet Gynaecol
Pelvic organ prolapse
Am Fam Physician
Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse repair after hysterectomy
Int Urogynecol J
Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse (Review) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON
Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range
BMC Med Res Methodol
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
BMJ
A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of uterine prolapse using polypropylene mesh: hysteropexy versus hysterectomy
Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes
Vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral sacrospinous fixation plus an anterior mesh versus abdominal sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of primary apical prolapse in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled study
Int Urogynecol J
Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study
Int Urogynecol J.
Cited by (6)
The effect of uterine volume on surgical outcomes following uterine preserving apical prolapse repair
2023, European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive BiologyCitation Excerpt :Reasons for interest in uterine preserving surgery include concern regarding impact on sexual function, desire for future fertility and sustaining self-image. [6]. Several studies have compared uterine preserving procedures to those including hysterectomy for the treatment of POP, showing comparable results [7,8]. In a recent large metanalysis including 53 studies, women who underwent uterine preservation had decreased operating time, blood loss, and risk of mesh exposure compared to patients treated with a concomitant hysterectomy, without altering short-term outcomes [9].
Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2024, International Journal of Gynecology and ObstetricsThe incidence and risk factors of occult malignancy in patients receiving vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse
2023, International Urogynecology JournalThe Pros and Cons of Hystero-preservation on Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery
2023, Gynecology and Minimally Invasive TherapyComparison of outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation
2023, International Urogynecology JournalPelvic organ prolapse recurrence after pregnancy following uterine-sparing prolapse repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2023, International Urogynecology Journal