Update in fertility-sparing native-tissue procedures for pelvic organ prolapse.
Italian language
Patient-reported outcome
Quality of life
Questionnaire
Validation
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
09
06
2020
accepted:
23
07
2020
pubmed:
19
8
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
19
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Uterine-sparing prolapse surgery has been gaining back popularity with clinicians and patients. Although both prosthetic and native-tissue surgery procedures are described, the latter is progressively regaining a central role in pelvic reconstructive surgery, owing to a lack of mesh-related complications. Available native-tissue procedures have different advantages and pitfalls, as well as different evidence profiles. Most of them offer anatomical and subjective outcomes comparable with those of hysterectomy-based procedures. Moreover, native-tissue procedures in young women desiring childbearing allow to avoid synthetic material implantation, which may lead to potentially serious complications during pregnancy. As a consequence, we do think that offering a reconstructive native-tissue procedure for uterine preservation (with the exception of the Manchester procedure) is the safest option in women wishing for pregnancy. Sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy and high uterosacral ligament hysteropexy may be considered first-line options in consideration of the higher level of evidence and lack of adverse obstetrical outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32809111
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04474-3
pii: 10.1007/s00192-020-04474-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2225-2231Références
Milani R, Frigerio M, Cola A, Beretta C, Spelzini F, Manodoro S. Outcomes of transvaginal high uterosacral ligaments suspension: over 500-patient single-center study. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018;24(1):39–42.
Frigerio M, Manodoro S, Cola A, Palmieri S, Spelzini F, Milani R. Detrusor underactivity in pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(8):1111–6.
Palmieri S, Cola A, Milani R, Manodoro S, Frigerio M. Quality of life in women with advanced pelvic organ prolapse treated with Gellhorn pessary. Minerva Ginecol. 2018;70(4):490–2.
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.
Manodoro S, Reato C, Cola A, Palmieri S, Frigerio M. Prolapse mesh complication: large stone on vaginal mesh extruded in the bladder. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019;235:131–2.
Milani R, Cola A, Palmieri S, Manodoro S, Frigerio M. Gluteo-vaginal fistula after prolapse mesh surgery. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;225:266–7.
Milani R, Frigerio M, Palmieri S, Manodoro S. Transvaginal mesh removal with native-tissue repair for mesh shrinkage and recurrent uterovaginal prolapse following vaginal mesh-augmented surgery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;139(1):105–6.
Lo TS, Cortes EFM, Wu PY, Tan YL, Al-Kharabsheh A, Pue LB. Assessment of collagen versus non collagen coated anterior vaginal mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery: prospective study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;198:138–44.
Spelzini F, Manodoro S, Frigerio M, Nicolini G, Maggioni D, Donzelli E, et al. Stem cell augmented mesh materials: an in vitro and in vivo study. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(5):675–83.
Jefferis H, Price N, Jackson S. Pregnancy following laparoscopic hysteropexy—a case series. Gynecol Surg. 2017;14(1):16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10397-017-1017-1 .
doi: 10.1186/s10397-017-1017-1
Wieslander CK, Weinstein MM, Handa VL, Collins SA. Pregnancy in women with prior treatments for pelvic floor disorders. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2020;26(5):299–305. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000822 .
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000822
Meriwether KV, Balk EM, Antosh DD, et al. Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):505–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03876-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-03876-2
Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HWF. 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:l5149.
Van IJsselmuiden MN, van Oudheusden A, Veen J, et al. Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus sacrospinous hysteropexy—a multicentre randomised controlled trial (LAVA trial). BMC Womens Health. 2020;14:112.
Gutman R, Maher C. Uterine-preserving POP surgery. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1803–13.
Lin TY, Su TH, Wang YL, 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.
Cavkaytar S, Kokanalı MK, Tasdemir U, Doganay M, Aksakal O. Pregnancy outcomes after transvaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;216:204–7.
Iliev VN, Andonova IT. Uterus preserving vaginal surgery versus vaginal hysterectomy for correction of female pelvic organ prolapse. Pril (Makedon Akad Nauk Umet Odd Med Nauki). 2014;35(1):243–7.
Thys SD, Coolen A, Martens IR, et al. A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(9):1171–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1422-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-011-1422-3
Rouzi AA, Sahly NN, Shobkshi AS, Abduljabbar HS. Manchester repair. An alternative to hysterectomy. Saudi Med J. 2009;30(11):1473–5.
Ayhan A, Esin S, Guven S, Salman C, Ozyuncu O. The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;92(3):228–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.12.002 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.12.002
Singh P, Liang BLW, Han HC. A retrospective observational study on the outcomes and efficacy of the Manchester procedure as a uterine-sparing surgery for uterovaginal prolapse. J Gynecol Surg. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1089/gyn.2018.0021 .
doi: 10.1089/gyn.2018.0021
Rosen DM, Shukla A, Cario GM, Carlton MA, Chou D. Is hysterectomy necessary for laparoscopic pelvic floor repair? A prospective study. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008;15(6):729–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmig.2008.08.010 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2008.08.010
Milani R, Frigerio M, Spelzini F, Manodoro S. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy: a video tutorial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(5):789–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3222-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3222-2
Milani R, Frigerio M, Manodoro S, Cola A, Spelzini F. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy: a retrospective feasibility study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(1):73–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3036-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3036-2
Milani R, Manodoro S, Cola A, Bellante N, Palmieri S, Frigerio M. Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy versus hysterectomy plus uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04206-2 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-04206-2
Manodoro S, Frigerio M, Milani R, Spelzini F. Tips and tricks for uterosacral ligament suspension: how to avoid ureteral injury. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):161–3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3497-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3497-y
Haj-Yahya R, Chill HH, Levin G, Reuveni-Salzman A, Shveiky D. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament hysteropexy vs total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for anterior and apical prolapse: surgical outcome and patient satisfaction. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2019;27(1):88–93.
Romanzi LJ, Tyagi R. Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ? Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(5):625–31.
Milani R, Manodoro S, Cola A, Palmieri S, Frigerio M. Transvaginal levator myorrhaphy for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):913–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3526-x .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3526-x
Milani R, Manodoro S, Cola A, Palmieri S, Frigerio M. Transvaginal hysteropexy to levator myorrhaphy: a novel technique for uterine preservation. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;148(1):125–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12989 .
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.12989
Huffaker RK, Kuehl TJ, Muir TW, Yandell PM, Pierce LM, Shull BL. Transverse cystocele repair with uterine preservation using native tissue. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(9):1275–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0629-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-008-0629-4
Serati M, Braga A, Cantaluppi S, Caccia G, Ghezzi F, Sorice P. Vaginal cystocele repair and hysteropexy in women with anterior and central compartment prolapse: efficacy and safety after 30 months of follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):831–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3498-x .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-017-3498-x
Salem HT, Tawfik RM, El Saman AM, Nasr A. Anterior abdominal wall cervicopexy for treatment of stage III and stage IV uterine prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010;110(2):130–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.03.025 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.03.025