Background: The preservation of the uterus has an important role in the pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Objectives: The aim of this study is to assess the long-term anatomical and functional outcomes of abdominal hysterosacropexy. Methods: Prospective study. A series of women who underwent open abdominal hysterosacropexy for high-stage POP with a minimum 75-month follow-up were included. Results: Data on 51 patients were included. Median follow-up was 136.7 months (range 75.8–258 months). Apical prolapse cure rate was 100%. The success rate for anterior and posterior vaginal compartment was 96 and 94% respectively. Urinary and sexual symptoms significantly improved. Ninety-two percentage of the women were “extremely” or “very much improved” with the operation. Conclusion: This study confirms that abdominal hysterosacropexy is a good surgical option with durable results for the management of POP in women who wish to preserve their uterus.

Keywords:
Abdominal hysterosacropexy, Anatomic outcomes, Functional outcomes, Pelvic organ prolapse, Long term
1.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.
Obstet Gynecol
. 1997 Apr; 89(4): 501–6.
2.
Jha S, Moran PA. National survey on the management of prolapse in the UK.
Neurourol Urodyn
. 2007; 26(3): 325–31.
3.
de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MI, Vierhout ME. The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
. 2009 Nov; 20(11): 1313–9.
4.
Samuelsson EC, Victor FT, Tibblin G, Svärdsudd KF. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
. 1999 Feb; 180(2 Pt 1): 299–305.
5.
Wu MP, Long CY, Huang KH, Chu CC, Liang CC, Tang CH. Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: an 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
. 2012 Jul; 23(7): 865–72.
6.
Babalola EO, Bharucha AE, Melton LJ 3rd, Schleck CD, Zinsmeister AR, Klingele CJ, et al. Utilization of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse: a population-based study in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1965-2002.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
. 2008 Sep; 19(9): 1243–50.
7.
Costantini E, Lazzeri M, Zucchi A, Bini V, Mearini L, Porena M. Five-year outcome of uterus sparing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse repair: a single-center experience.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
. 2011 Mar; 22(3): 287–92.
8.
Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
. 2010 Jan; 21(1): 5–26.
9.
Simren M, Palsson OS, Whitehead WE. Update on Rome IV Criteria for Colorectal Disorders: Implications for Clinical Practice.
Curr Gastroenterol Rep
. 2017 Apr; 19(4): 15.
10.
Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK, Fantl JA; Continence Program for Women Research Group. Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire and the Urogenital Distress Inventory.
Neurourol Urodyn
. 1995; 14(2): 131–9.
11.
Artibani W, Pesce F, Prezioso D, Scarpa RM, Zattoni F, Tubaro A, et al.; FLOW study group. Italian validation of the urogenital distress inventory and its application in LUTS patients.
Eur Urol
. 2006 Dec; 50(6): 1323–9.
12.
Filocamo MT, Serati M, Li Marzi V, Costantini E, Milanesi M, Pietropaolo A, et al. The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): linguistic validation of the Italian version.
J Sex Med
. 2014 Feb; 11(2): 447–53.
13.
Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M. Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse.
Eur Urol
. 2005 Oct; 48(4): 642–9.
14.
Illiano E, Giannitsas K, Zucchi A, Di Biase M, Del Zingaro M, Bini V, et al. Sacrocolpopexy for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: long-term follow-up.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
. 2016 Oct; 27(10): 1563–9.
15.
Clavien PA, Sanabria JR, Strasberg SM. Proposed classification of complications of surgery with examples of utility in cholecystectomy. Surgery. 1992 May; 111(5): 518–26.
16.
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 Aug; 240(2): 205–13.
17.
Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Cosson M, Davila GW, Deprest J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) & grafts in female pelvic floor surgery.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
. 2011 Jan; 22(1): 3–15.
18.
Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L. Cardozo. Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
. 2010 May; 21(5): 523–8.
19.
Altman D, Granath F, Cnattingius S, Falconer C. Hysterectomy and risk of stress-urinary-incontinence surgery: nationwide cohort study.
Lancet
. 2007 Oct; 370(9597): 1494–9.
20.
Leron E, Stanton SL. Sacrohysteropexy with synthetic mesh for the management of uterovaginal prolapse.
BJOG
. 2001 Jun; 108(6): 629–33.
21.
Barranger E, Fritel X, Pigne A. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: long-term follow-up.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
. 2003 Nov; 189(5): 1245–50.
22.
Richardson DA, Scotti RJ, Ostergard DR. Surgical management of uterine prolapse in young women.
J Reprod Med
. 1989 Jun; 34(6): 388–92.
23.
Kovac SR, Cruikshank SH. Successful pregnancies and vaginal deliveries after sacrospinous uterosacral fixation in five of nineteen patients.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
. 1993 Jun; 168(6 Pt 1): 1778–83.
24.
Ozcan U, Güngör T, Ekin M, Eken S. Sacrospinous fixation for the prolapsed vaginal vault.
Gynecol Obstet Invest
. 1999; 47(1): 65–8.
25.
Nicita G, Li Marzi V, Filocamo MT, Dattolo E, Marzocco M, Paoletti MC, et al. Uterus-sparing vaginal surgery of genitourinary prolapse employing biocompatible material.
Urol Int
. 2005; 75(4): 314–8.
26.
Hefni M, El-Toukhy T, Bhaumik J, Katsimanis E. Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
. 2003 Mar; 188(3): 645–50.
27.
van Brummen HJ, van de Pol G, Aalders CI, Heintz AP, van der Vaart CH. Sacrospinous hysteropexy compared to vaginal hysterectomy as primary surgical treatment for a descensus uteri: effects on urinary symptoms.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct
. 2003 Nov; 14(5): 350–5.
28.
Mateu Arrom L, Errando Smet C, Gutierrez Ruiz C, Araño P, Palou Redorta J. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair with Mesh: Mid-Term Efficacy and Complications.
Urol Int
. 2018; 101(2): 201–5.
© 2019 S. Karger AG, Basel
2019
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.