nach oben

International Urogynecology Journal

Erschienen in:

03.03.2017 | Review Article

Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes

verfasst von: Shveta Kapoor, Kanapathippillai Sivanesan, Jessica Amy Robertson, Mayooran Veerasingham, Vishal Kapoor

Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal | Ausgabe 9/2017

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Introduction

Sacrospinous hysteropexy is a uterine-preserving procedure for treatment of apical prolapse. We present a literature review evaluating the sacrospinous hysteropexy procedure and its current place in the surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. Additionally, to assess the efficacy of the procedure, we performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing sacrospinous hysteropexy to vaginal hysterectomy and repair in terms of anatomical outcomes, complications, and repeat surgery.

Methods

Major literature databases including MEDLINE (1946 to 2 April 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 3), and Embase (1947 to 2 April 2016) were searched for relevant studies. We used Cochrane Collaboration’s Review Manager software to perform meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies and observational studies.

Results

Vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy was first performed in 1989 and is similar in technique to sacrospinous colpopexy. Two randomized controlled trials and four cohort studies (n = 651) were included in the meta-analysis. Apical failure rates after sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy were not significantly different, although the trend favored vaginal hysterectomy [odds ratio (OR) 2.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76–5.68]. Rates of repeat surgery for prolapse were not significantly different between the two groups (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.41–2.37). The most significant disadvantage of uterine-preservation prolapse surgery when compared with hysterectomy is the lack of prevention and diagnosis of uterine malignancy.

Conclusion

Sacrospinous hysteropexy is a safe and effective procedure for pelvic organ prolapse and has comparable outcomes to vaginal hysterectomy with repair.

Arthure HG, Savage D. Uterine prolapse and prolapse of the vaginal vault treated by sacral hysteropexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1957;64(3):355–60.CrossRefPubMed

V B. The principles that should underline all operations for prolapse. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Emp. 1934;41:669–83.CrossRef

Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Vierhout ME, van Eijndhoven HW. [Uterus preserving surgery versus vaginal hysterectomy in treatment of uterine descent: a systematic review]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2011;155(42):A3623.PubMed

Downing KT. Uterine prolapse: from antiquity to today. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2012;2012:649459.PubMed

Amreich J. Etiology and surgery of vaginal stump prolapses. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 1951;63(5):74–7.PubMed

Richter K. The surgical anatomy of the vaginaefixatio sacrospinalis vaginalis. a contribution to the surgical treatment of vaginal blind pouch prolapse. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1968;28(4):321–7.PubMed

Sederl J. Surgery in prolapse of a blind-end vagina. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1958;18(6):824–8.PubMed

Fothergill WE. Anterior colporrhaphy and its combination with amputation of the cervix as a single operation. J Obstetr Gynaecol British Empire. 1915;27:146–7.CrossRef

Nava y Sanchez RM, Velasco RV, Uribe Acosta R, Ledesma Garcia T. Manchester’s operation. II. late complications and obstetric future. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 1973;33(199):257–66.PubMed

10.

Richardson DA, Scotti RJ, Ostergard DR. Surgical management of uterine prolapse in young women. J Reprod Med. 1989;34(6):388–92.PubMed

11.

Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH. Successful pregnancies and vaginal deliveries after sacrospinous uterosacral fixation in five of nineteen patients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993;168(6 Pt 1):1778–83. discussion 1783–1776.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Beer M, Kuhn A. Surgical techniques for vault prolapse: a review of the literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;119(2):144–55.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Sylvester T, Bond V, Johnson Jr HW, Chai TC. Radiologic images of retrograde ureterography before and after release of bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation sutures. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(3):168–9.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Chapin DS. Teaching sacrospinous colpopexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177(6):1330–6.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Hibner M, Cornella JL, Magrina JF, Heppell JP. Ischiorectal abscess after sacrospinous ligament suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;193(5):1740–2.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Toglia MR, Fagan MJ. Suture erosion rates and long-term surgical outcomes in patients undergoing sacrospinous ligament suspension with braided polyester suture. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):600.e601–604.CrossRef

17.

Murphy AM, Goldman HB. Transvaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(4):529–30.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Doganay M, Aksakal O. Minimally invasive sacrospinous ligament suspension: perioperative morbidity and review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(6):1167–72.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Pollak J, Takacs P, Medina C. Complications of three sacrospinous ligament fixation techniques. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99(1):18–22.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Leone Roberti Maggiore U, Alessandri F, Remorgida V, Venturini PL, Ferrero S. Vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy using the Capio suture-capturing device versus traditional technique: feasibility and outcome. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;287(2):267–74.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Manning JA, Arnold P. A review of six sacrospinous suture devices. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;54(6):558–63.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sze EH, Karram MM. Transvaginal repair of vault prolapse: a review. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(3):466–75.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Rane A, Lim YN, Withey G, Muller R. Magnetic resonance imaging findings following three different vaginal vault prolapse repair procedures: a randomised study. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;44(2):135–9.CrossRefPubMed

24.

David-Montefiore E, Barranger E, Dubernard G, Nizard V, Antoine JM, Darai E. Functional results and quality-of-life after bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation for genital prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;132(2):209–13.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Senturk MB, Guraslan H, Cakmak Y, Ekin M. Bilateral sacrospinous fixation without hysterectomy: 18-month follow-up. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2015;16(2):102–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Dreyer NA, Velentgas P, Westrich K, Dubois R. The GRACE checklist for rating the quality of observational studies of comparative effectiveness: a tale of hope and caution. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2014;20(3):301–8.PubMed

27.

Hefni MA, El-Toukhy TA. Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal and vault prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127(2):257–63.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Jeng CJ, Yang YC, Tzeng CR, Shen J, Wang LR. Sexual functioning after vaginal hysterectomy or transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension for uterine prolapse: a comparison. J Reprod Med. 2005;50(9):669–74.PubMed

29.

Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB. 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:h3717.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Dietz V, van der Vaart CH, van der Graaf Y, Heintz P, Schraffordt Koops SE. One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(2):209–16.CrossRefPubMed

31.

van Brummen HJ, van de Pol G, Aalders CI, Heintz AP, van der Vaart CH. Sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy as primary surgical treatment for a descensus uteri: effects on urinary symptoms. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(5):350–5. discussion 355.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Hefni M, El-Toukhy T, Bhaumik J, Katsimanis E. Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(3):645–50.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Maher CF, Cary MP, Slack MC, Murray CJ, Milligan M, Schluter P. Uterine preservation or hysterectomy at sacrospinous colpopexy for uterovaginal prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12(6):381–4. discussion 384–385.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Lo TS, Pue LB, Hung TH, Wu PY, Tan YL. Long-term outcome of native tissue reconstructive vaginal surgery for advanced pelvic organ prolapse at 86 months: Hysterectomy versus hysteropexy. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2015;41(7):1099–107.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1803–13.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Dietz V, Schraffordt Koops SE, van der Vaart CH. Vaginal surgery for uterine descent; which options do we have? a review of the literature. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(3):349–56.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Lin TY, Su TH, Wang YL, Lee MY, Hsieh CH, Wang KG, et al. Risk factors for failure of transvaginal sacrospinous uterine suspension in the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. J Formos Med Assoc. 2005;104(4):249–53.PubMed

38.

Sheng Q, Ma N, Huang H, Xu B, He C, Song Y. Significance of preoperative calculation of uterine weight as an indicator for preserving the uterus in pelvic reconstructive surgery. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8(1):900–5.PubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Frick AC, Walters MD, Larkin KS, Barber MD. Risk of unanticipated abnormal gynecologic pathology at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;202(5):507.e501–504.CrossRef

40.

Renganathan A, Edwards R, Duckett JR. Uterus conserving prolapse surgery--what is the chance of missing a malignancy? Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(7):819–21.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Walters MD. Uterovaginal prolapse in a woman desiring uterine preservation. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(11):1465. discussion 1465–1470.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Ridgeway BM. Does prolapse equal hysterectomy? The role of uterine conservation in women with uterovaginal prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;213(6):802–9.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Mansoor A, Campagne S, Cornou C, Goujon N, Cerisier S, Savary D, et al. Is hysterectomy required during vaginal reconstructive pelvic surgery? About histopathological results. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2013;41(2):80–4.CrossRefPubMed

44.

Bohoussou E, Adjoussou SA, Letouzey V, Fatton B, de Tayrac R. Should we perform intraoperative endometrial biopsy during pelvic reconstructive surgery with uterine preservation? J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2014;43(1):40–5.CrossRef

45.

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. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):470.e471–476.CrossRef

46.

Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103–9.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Good MM, Korbly N, Kassis NC, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, et al. Prolapse-related knowledge and attitudes toward the uterus in women with pelvic organ prolapse symptoms. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):481.e481–486.CrossRef

48.

Wong K, Jakus-Waldman S, Yazdany T. Patient beliefs regarding hysterectomy in women seeking surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: findings in a predominantly Hispanic population. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20(5):267–71.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Vanspauwen R, Seman E, Dwyer P. Survey of current management of prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;50(3):262–7.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes
verfasst von: Shveta Kapoor
Kanapathippillai Sivanesan
Jessica Amy Robertson
Mayooran Veerasingham
Vishal Kapoor
Publikationsdatum: 03.03.2017
Verlag: Springer London
Erschienen in: International Urogynecology Journal / Ausgabe 9/2017
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Elektronische ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3291-x

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes