Indexed on: 02 Mar '18Published on: 23 Feb '18Published in: Current Urology Reports
Purpose of Review Women have an estimated 12.6% lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in the USA (Wu et al. in Obstet Gynecol 123(6): 1201–6, 2014). Surgical repair of uterovaginal prolapse most commonly includes hysterectomy and vaginal vault suspension; however, the value of concomitant hysterectomy is uncertain, and there appears to be growing interest in uterine conservation. Multiple procedures have evolved using a variety of approaches. The aim of this paper is to review uterine sparing (hysteropexy) prolapse repair techniques and outcomes. Recent Findings Several randomized controlled trials (RCT) have shown comparable success rates for apical compartment support with sacrospinous hysteropexy as compared to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension, with shorter hospitalization and quicker return to work. (Detollenaere et al. in BMJ 351: h3717, 2015); (Dietz et al. in Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21(2): 209–16, 2010). Available data suggest vaginal mesh hysteropexy is as effective as vaginal mesh with hysterectomy, with lower rates of mesh exposure. (Maher et al., 2017) To date, no RCTs have been published comparing sacral hysteropexy to hysterectomy with sacral colpopexy. Overall, there is a higher reoperation rate for sacral hysteropexy and a higher mesh exposure rate for hysterectomy with sacral colpopexy. (Maher et al., 2017) No RCTs have been published comparing hysteropexy surgical approaches. Summary Although hysteropexy data is expanding, there is a need for more information regarding long-term surgical durability, appropriate patient selection, and whether one approach is superior to another.