Evidence-Based Review of Vaginal Native Tissue Hysteropexy for Uterovaginal Prolapse.

IMPORTANCE

As surgical techniques evolve in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse and patient preferences are better understood, more studies are investigating uterine-sparing procedures for efficacy, safety, and potentially improved quality of life. Much of the literature reflects the use of mesh material in uterine-sparing procedures, and there is a paucity of data regarding the safety and efficacy of native tissue uterine-sparing procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize existing evidence regarding objective and subjective outcomes of uterine-preserving procedures including the Manchester procedure (MP) as well as native tissue uterovaginal hysteropexy with repairs, namely, uterosacral hysteropexy (USH) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), compared with outcomes of total vaginal hysterectomy (TVH) with repairs for the management of uterovaginal prolapse.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A review of the literature included MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases.

RESULTS

Few level 1 data exist comparing outcomes of native tissue hysteropexy to vaginal hysterectomy for management of uterovaginal prolapse. In general, outcomes of the MP for the management of uterovaginal prolapse revealed that compared with TVH it is associated with shorter operative times, lower estimated blood loss and risk of blood transfusion with no difference in hospital stay, and similar quality of life and sexual function outcomes. Retrospective data suggest no difference with respect to recurrent prolapse of any compartment between USH and TVH with repairs. Level 1 data reveal that SSH has been shown to have similar 1-year outcomes and safety compared with TVH with native tissue suspension. Women with stage 4 prolapse who undergo an SSH may be at higher risk of recurrence and may benefit from an alternative method of apical prolapse repair.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

More level 1 data are needed in order to robustly understand long-term differences in outcomes between native tissue uterine-conserving versus vaginal hysterectomy surgical approaches in women with uterovaginal prolapse.