The success rate and quality of life following three types of uterine sparing prolapse surgery

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pelvic Floor Fellowship, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pelvic Floor Fellowship, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pelvic Floor Fellowship, Faculty of Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

4 Associate professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.

5 Assistant professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.

6 Research Professor of Mother and Child Health, Maternal, Fetal and Neonatal Research Center, Family Health Research Institute, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: Uterine prolapse has been traditionally treated with vaginal hysterectomy and cuff suspension. Recently there is renewed interest in uterine conservation during prolapse surgeries. This study was performed with aim to evaluate the success rate and quality of life in women following one of three types of uterine sparing prolapse surgery.
Methods: This retrospective study was performed in Tehran Imam Khomeini Hospital in 2019. The data of 99 patients with uterine prolapse who underwent one of three types of uterine sparing surgery (Manchester, Sacrospinus Hysteropexy, Abdominal sacral Hysteropexy) during three years were reviewed and compared in terms of success rate and quality of life. 99 patients completed a valid questionnaire of quality of life after prolapse surgeries (Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20). The success rate after 12 months was evaluated as a primary outcome and the complications such as repeat surgery, using pessary  and feeling mass were evaluated as secondary outcomes. Data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 22) and ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-square tests were used. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: The success rate of sacral hysteropexy was higher than two other groups (about 94%).The highest recurrence was in sacrospinous, in the Ba point ( -2.06± 0.506) and C point (-2.1±1.084) (p<0.01). The quality of life was similar in the Manchester and sacral hysteropexy group and was higher than sacrospinous group. Early complications after sacral hysteropexy were ileus and defecatory disorder.
Conclusion: All three uterine sparing prolapse surgeries had success rate of higher than 60%. All three surgical groups had a good quality of life and satisfaction 12 months after the procedure. The highest recurrence was in sacrospinous in Ba and C points. Finding mesh complications following sacral hysteropexy surgery requires long-term follow-up.

Keywords

References

  1. Chang CP, Horng HC, Wang PH. Complete and thorough evaluation is critical for the initiation of surgery in the management of women with pelvic floor disorders. J Chin Med Assoc 2018; 81:851-2.
  2. Horng HC, Lee FK, Wang PH. Pelvic organ prolapse. J Chin Med Assoc 2018; 81(5):387-9.
  3. Slieker-ten Hove MC, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJ, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Burger CW, Vierhout ME. The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. International urogynecology journal 2009; 20(9):1037-45.
  4. Detollenaere RJ, Den Boon J, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME, Van Eijndhoven HW. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse and uterine descent in the Netherlands. International urogynecology journal 2013; 24(5):781-8.
  5. Vanspauwen R, Seman E, Dwyer P. Survey of current management of prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2010; 50(3):262-7.
  6. Jha S, Moran P. The UK national prolapse survey: 5 years on. International urogynecology journal 2011; 22(5):517-28.
  7. Madsen AM, Raker C, Sung VW. Trends in hysteropexy and apical support for uterovaginal prolapse in the United States from 2002 to 2012. Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery 2017; 23(6):365-71.
  8. Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2013; 209(5):470-e1.
  9. Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery 2013; 19(2):103-9.
  10. Tolstrup CK, Husby KR, Lose G, Kopp TI, Viborg PH, Kesmodel US, et al. The Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study. International urogynecology journal 2018; 29(3):431-40.
  11. Schulten SF, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HW. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. bmj 2019; 366.
  12. Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine-preserving POP surgery. International urogynecology journal 2013; 24(11):1803-13.
  13. Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, Geiss I, Riss P. An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. International urogynecology journal 2010; 21(3):299-302.
  14. Hakimi S, Hajebrahimi S, Bastani P, Aminian E, Ghana S, Mohammadi M. 208: Translation and Validation of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Short Form (PFDI-20), Iranian Version. BMJ open 2017; 7(Suppl 1).
  15. Dietz V, Huisman M, de Jong JM, Heintz PM, van der Vaart CH. Functional outcome after sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterine descensus. International Urogynecology Journal 2008; 19(6):747-52.
  16. Schulten SF, Enklaar RA, Kluivers KB, van Leijsen SA, Jansen-van der Weide MC, Adang EM, et al. Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study). BMC women's health 2019; 19(1):1-8.
  17. Ayhan A, Esin S, Guven SÜ, Salman C, Ozyuncu O. The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 2006; 92(3):228-33.
  18. Park YJ, Kong MK, Lee J, Kim EH, Bai SW. Manchester operation: an effective treatment for uterine prolapse caused by true cervical elongation. Yonsei medical journal 2019; 60(11):1074-80.
  19. Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, Kim-Fine S, Balk EM, Murphy M, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2018; 219(2):129-46.
  20. Leron E, Stanton SL. Sacrohysteropexy with synthetic mesh for the management of uterovaginal prolapse. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2001; 108(6):629-33.
  21. Rosenblatt PL, Chelmow D, Ferzandi TR. Laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of uterine prolapse: a retrospective case series report. Journal of minimally invasive gynecology 2008; 15(3):268-72.
  22. Grimminck K, Mourik SL, Tjin-Asjoe F, Martens J, Aktas M. Long-term follow-up and quality of life after robot assisted sacrohysteropexy. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 2016; 206:27-31.
  23. Daniels S, Robson D, Palacz M, Howell S, Nguyen T, Behnia‐Willison F. Success rates and outcomes of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2020; 60(2):244-9.
  24. Shkarupa D, Kubin N, Shapovalova E, Zaytseva A. The resurrection of sacrospinous fixation: unilateral apical sling hysteropexy. International urogynecology journal 2020; 31(2):351-7.
  25. Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. Bmj 2015; 351.
  26. Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Jama 2013; 309(19):2016-24.
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 24, Issue 4
June 2021
Pages 1-9

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics