Alternatives to Hysterectomy in Patients With Uterovaginal Prolapse

Baburam Dixit Thapa, Tulasa Basnet, G. Willy Davila, Mohan Chandra Regmi


Background: Uterovaginal prolapse is a common problem in women. Hysterectomy has been considered as a standard procedure during surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. However, in recent years, interest has been growing in the use of uterus-preserving surgeries. Different options available for uterine preservation include the Manchester Fothergills operation, sacral hysteropexy (abdominal, laparoscopic or robotic with or without mesh), uterosacral ligament hysteropexy, sacrospinous hysteropexy (with or without mesh) and colpocleisis. The aim of this review was to analyze the different options of uterus-preserving surgeries and compare their outcomes with prolapse surgeries including hysterectomy.

Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Clinical and the Hinari database were reviewed through 2020 by two of the authors. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomized prospective controlled studies (nrPCSs) where different uterus-preserving surgeries for uterovaginal prolapse were compared with surgeries involving hysterectomy were included for the review.

Results: We identified 225 articles from the electronic search and 19 articles meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria were reviewed. Among them, 10 were RCTs and nine were nrPCSs. The review identified that objective prolapse recurrence, quality of life and adverse events were similar between uterine preservation and hysterectomy groups. Abdominal routes were non-inferior to vaginal uterus-preserving surgeries. Need for repeat surgery after a hysteropexy procedure ranged from 2% to 29%. The Manchester operation demonstrated good anatomical and symptomatic improvement as compared to hysterectomy. When comparing sacrohysteropexy routes, the laparoscopic approach had lower recurrent prolapse symptoms than open sacrohysteropexy. Operating time and estimated blood loss were less with uterus-preserving surgeries. The most common adverse events in hysteropexy surgeries were urinary incontinence, voiding dysfunction, sexual dysfunction and mesh erosion, when mesh used.

Conclusion: The evidence from currently available literature suggests the vaginal and abdominal uterus-preserving surgeries to be equally effective, and not inferior to surgical procedures including hysterectomy. When surgeons are faced with a patient requesting uterine preservation, counseling should be performed cautiously regarding choosing one type of hysteropexy over another. However, the data on long-term follow-up and outcomes are lacking.

J Clin Gynecol Obstet. 2022;11(3):53-61


Hysterectomy; Sacrohysteropexy; Uterus-preserving surgeries; Uterine suspension; Uterovaginal prolapse; Vaginal hysteropexy

Full Text: HTML PDF

Browse  Journals  


Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics

World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology

Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity

Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research

Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics






Journal of Clinical Gynecology & Obstetrics, quarterly, ISSN 1927-1271 (print), 1927-128X (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.                     
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
This is an open-access journal, the authors retain the copyright, the journal is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International CC-BY-NC 4.0)

This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website:   editorial contact:
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors and Elmer Press Inc. This website is provided for medical research and informational purposes only and does not constitute any medical advice or professional services. The information provided in this journal should not be used for diagnosis and treatment, those seeking medical advice should always consult with a licensed physician.