Study Objective: To compare the objective outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral hysteropexy with that of hysterectomy combined with laparoscopic uterosacral colpopexy. Design: Retrospective cohort study, 1999-2010 (Canadian Task Force classification II-2). Setting: University hospital in South Australia. Patients: Women with uterovaginal prolapse who had undergone laparoscopic uterosacral hysteropexy (n = 104) or laparovaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral colpopexy (n = 160). Apical suspension procedures were subdivided into prophylactic (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System [POP-Q] stage 1 apical descent, with stage ≥2 prolapse in an adjacent compartment) and therapeutic (POP-Q stage ≥2 apical descent, with or without adjacent compartment prolapse). Interventions: All patients were assessed via POP-Q scoring preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 6 months, annually, and then biannually. Recurrence of bulge symptoms and need for repeat treatment were recorded. Measurements and Main Results: Demographic data, preoperative degree of prolapse, and percentages of prophylactic and therapeutic procedures were similar in both groups. With a median follow-up of 2.5 years, objective success rates (POP-Q stage <2 in all compartments) for uterosacral hysteropexy were 53% for prophylactic procedures and 41% for therapeutic procedures, and for hysterectomy with uterosacral colpopexy were 66% for prophylactic procedures and 59% for therapeutic procedures. Repeat operation rates overall were 28% for hysteropexy and 21% for hysterectomy with colpopexy. Failures at the apex specifically were 27% for hysteropexy and 11% for hysterectomy with colpopexy (p < .02). Conclusion: Hysterectomy with laparoscopic uterosacral colpopexy produced better objective success rates than did laparoscopic uterosacral hysteropexy; however, repeat operation rates were not significantly different.
- Pelvic floor repair
- Uterine preservation