Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review.
hysterectomy
hysteropexy
laparoscopy
minimally invasive surgery
pelvic organ prolapse
sacrocolpopexy
uterine preservation
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Sep 2024
26 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
03
07
2024
accepted:
22
08
2024
medline:
26
9
2024
pubmed:
26
9
2024
entrez:
26
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Literature is lacking strong evidence about comparisons of efficacy and quality of life-related outcomes between laparoscopic total and/or supracervical hysterectomy (LTH/LSCH) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy (LSH). To summarize and compare available data on this topic providing a useful clinical tool in the treatment decision process. We performed a systematic research of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Gooogle Scholar. We included studies that compared at least one efficacy outcome (objective or subjective outcome) between LTH/LSCH with LSC and LSH. Data on surgery-related morbidities were also extracted where available. A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0. We included a total of nine observational studies. LTH/LSCH with LSH was associated with a significantly higher objective success (apical compartment OR 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-28.33; I LTH/LSCH with LSC has better objective and subjective outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery than LSH alone, especially for apical and anterior compartments, and is not associated with higher postoperative sexual dysfunction and mesh-related complications. Adequate preoperative counseling is highly recommended in patients who desire uterine preservation. CRD42024537270.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Literature is lacking strong evidence about comparisons of efficacy and quality of life-related outcomes between laparoscopic total and/or supracervical hysterectomy (LTH/LSCH) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy (LSH).
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To summarize and compare available data on this topic providing a useful clinical tool in the treatment decision process.
SEARCH STRATEGY
METHODS
We performed a systematic research of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Gooogle Scholar.
SELECTION CRITERIA
METHODS
We included studies that compared at least one efficacy outcome (objective or subjective outcome) between LTH/LSCH with LSC and LSH. Data on surgery-related morbidities were also extracted where available.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0.
MAIN RESULTS
RESULTS
We included a total of nine observational studies. LTH/LSCH with LSH was associated with a significantly higher objective success (apical compartment OR 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-28.33; I
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
LTH/LSCH with LSC has better objective and subjective outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery than LSH alone, especially for apical and anterior compartments, and is not associated with higher postoperative sexual dysfunction and mesh-related complications. Adequate preoperative counseling is highly recommended in patients who desire uterine preservation.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER
UNASSIGNED
CRD42024537270.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
Shi W, Guo L. Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse: a meta‐analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol J Inst Obstet Gynaecol. 2023;43(1):2160929.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann‐Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2016;2016(11):CD004014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub6
Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, et al. Laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension vs. laparoscopic sacral Colpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a case‐control study. Front Med. 2022;9:853694.
De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):3‐17.
Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, et al. Robot‐assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):303‐318.
Costantini E, Brubaker L, Cervigni M, et al. Sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: evidence‐based review and recommendations. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;205:60‐65.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA. Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg. 2004;240(2):205‐213.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:14898.
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS‐I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non‐randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.
Mao M, Fu H, Wang Q, Bai J, Zhang Y, Guo R. The effect of hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy on the outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Maturitas. 2023;170:58‐63.
Bedford ND, Seman EI, O'Shea RT, Keirse MJNC. Effect of uterine preservation on outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):172‐177.
Veit‐Rubin N, Dubuisson J, Constantin F, et al. Uterus preservation is superior to hysterectomy when performing laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):557‐564.
Gracia M, Perelló M, Bataller E, et al. Comparison between laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy and subtotal hysterectomy plus cervicopexy in pelvic organ prolapse: a pilot study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(7):654‐658.
Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, et al. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacral colpopexy plus supracervical hysterectomy in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(2):359‐368.
Li PC, Ding DC. Outcomes of laparoscopic hysteropexy and supracervical hysterectomy plus cervicopexy: a retrospective study. Tzu Chi Med J. 2020;32(3):262.
Sato H, Otsuka S, Abe H, Tsukada S. Comparison of outcomes of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concomitant supracervical hysterectomy or uterine preservation. Int Urogynecol J. 2023;34(9):2217‐2224.
Saliba E, Nisolle M, Tchente C, De Landsheere L. Doit‐on réaliser systématiquement une hystérectomie subtotale dans le cadre d'une promontofixation cœlioscopique? Gynécologie Obstétrique Fertil Sénologie. 2019;47(7–8):549‐554.
Arcieri M, Morlacco A, Montebelli F, et al. Sacrocolpopexy after sub‐total hysterectomy vs. sacral hysteropexy for advanced urogenital prolapse: a propensity‐matched study. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet. 2023;163(3):847‐853.
Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Costantini E. Comparison between laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy and hysteropexy in advanced urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):2069‐2074.
Pan K, Cao L, Ryan NA, Wang Y, Xu H. Laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):93‐101.
Gagyor D, Kalis V, Smazinka M, Rusavy Z, Pilka R, Ismail KM. Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a cohort study (POP‐UP study). BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):72.
Porcari I, Zorzato PC, Bosco M, et al. Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2024;166:189.
Azadi A, Marchand G, Masoud AT, et al. Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the uterus, a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;267:90‐98.
Meriwether KV, Antosh DD, Olivera CK, et al. Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta‐analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;219(2):129‐146.e2.
Larouche M, Belzile E, Geoffrion R. Surgical Management of Symptomatic Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2021;137(6):1061‐1073.
Schulten SFM, Claas‐Quax MJ, Weemhoff M, et al. Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta‐analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022;227(2):192‐208.
Jakus‐Waldman S, Brubaker L, Jelovsek JE, et al. Risk factors for surgical failure and worsening pelvic floor symptoms within 5 years after vaginal prolapse repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(5):933‐941.
Vandendriessche D, Giraudet G, Lucot JP, Béhal H, Cosson M. Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy learning curve on operative time, perioperative complications and short term results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;191:84‐89.
Mustafa S, Amit A, Filmar S, et al. Implementation of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: establishment of a learning curve and short‐term outcomes. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(4):983‐988.
Akladios CY, Dautun D, Saussine C, Baldauf JJ, Mathelin C, Wattiez A. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for female genital organ prolapse: establishment of a learning curve. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2010;149(2):218‐221.
Deblaere S, Hauspy J, Hansen K. Mesh exposure following minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy: a narrative review. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(10):2713‐2725.
Campagna G, Pedone Anchora L, Panico G, et al. Titanized polypropylene mesh in laparoscopic sacral colpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(4):763‐768.
Deng T, Liao B, Luo D, Shen H, Wang K. Risk factors for mesh erosion after female pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BJU Int. 2016;117(2):323‐343.
Nassif J, Yadav GS, Orejuela FJ, Turrentine MA. Rate of mesh erosion after Sacrocolpopexy with concurrent Supracervical compared with Total hysterectomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2022;140(3):412‐420.
Gluck O, Blaganje M, Veit‐Rubin N, et al. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive literature review on current practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020;245:94‐101.
Stabile G, Romano F, Topouzova GA, et al. Spondylodiscitis after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: description of a rare complication and systematic review of the literature. Front Surg. 2021;8:741311.
van der Ploeg JM, van der Steen A, Zwolsman S, van der Vaart CH, Roovers J. Prolapse surgery with or without incontinence procedure: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. BJOG. 2018;125(3):289‐297.
Jelovsek JE, Chagin K, Brubaker L, et al. A model for predicting the risk of de novo stress urinary incontinence in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(2 Pt 1):279‐287.
Ramage K, Ducey A, Scime NV, Knox E, Brennand EA. Factors affecting women's decision between uterine‐preserving versus hysterectomy‐based surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Womens Health. 2023;19:17455057231181015.
Gerjevic KA, Erekson E, Strohbehn K, Jacobs KA, Hanissian PD, Aarts JW. Information priorities for deciding on treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019;25(5):372‐377.
Good MM, Korbly N, Kassis NC, 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.e1‐481.e6.
Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):470.e1‐470.e6.
Lonnée‐Hoffmann R, Pinas I. Effects of hysterectomy on sexual function. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2014;6(4):244‐251.
Dedden SJ, Werner MA, Steinweg J, et al. Hysterectomy and sexual function: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Sex Med. 2023;20(4):447‐466.
Kazemi F, Alimoradi Z, Tavakolian S. Effect of hysterectomy due to benign diseases on female sexual function: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2022;29(4):476‐488.
Kim‐Fine S, Antosh DD, Balk EM, et al. Relationship of postoperative vaginal anatomy and sexual function: a systematic review with meta‐analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;32(8):2125‐2134.
de Oliveira SA, Fonseca MCM, Bortolini MAT, Girão MJBC, Roque MT, Castro RA. Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1617‐1630.
He L, Feng D, Zha X, et al. Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in uterine prolapse surgery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33(7):1917‐1925.
Pacquée S, Nawapun K, Claerhout F, et al. Long‐term assessment of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2019;134(2):323‐332. https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/fulltext/2019/08000/long_term_assessment_of_a_prospective_cohort_of.17.aspx
Sarlos D, Kots L, Ryu G, Schaer G. Long‐term follow‐up of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1207‐1212.