Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Irene Porcari; Pier Carlo Zorzato; Mariachiara Bosco; Simone Garzon; Francesca Magni; Stefano Salvatore; Massimo P Franchi; Stefano Uccella

doi:10.1002/ijgo.15343

Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024 Jan 25. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.15343. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Irene Porcari¹, Pier Carlo Zorzato¹, Mariachiara Bosco¹, Simone Garzon¹, Francesca Magni¹, Stefano Salvatore², Massimo P Franchi¹, Stefano Uccella¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, AOUI Verona, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
² Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, University Vita and Salute, Milan, Italy.

PMID: 38269852
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15343

Abstract

Background: Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine-sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal mesh use have been largely abandoned.

Objectives: To provide up-to-date evidence by examining only studies investigating techniques currently in use for POP repair.

Search strategy: MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 2023.

Selection criteria: We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing surgical procedures for POP with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Studies describing open abdominal approaches or transvaginal mesh implantation were excluded.

Data collection and analysis: A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on extracted data reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Main results: Thirty-eight studies were included. Hysterectomy and uterine-sparing procedures did not differ in reoperation rate (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.74-1.17), intraoperative major (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.79-2.26) and minor (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.79-2.4) complications, postoperative major (OR 1.42; 95% CI 0.85-2.37) and minor (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.9-1.53) complications, and objective (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.92-2.07) or subjective (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.8-1.88) success. Uterine preservation was associated with a shorter operative time (-22.7 min; 95% CI -16.92 to -28.51 min), shorter hospital stay (-0.35 days, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.65 days), and less blood loss (-61.7 mL; 95% CI -31.3 to -92.1 mL). When only studies using a laparoscopic approach for both arms were considered, no differences were observed in investigated outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusions: No major differences were observed in POP outcomes between procedures with and without concomitant hysterectomy. The decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be tailored on individual factors.

Keywords: hysteropexy; laparoscopic hysterectomy; minimally invasive surgery; sacral cervicopexy; sacrocolpopexy; sacrohysteropexy; uterine prolapse; vaginal hysterectomy.

Publication types

Review