AbstractPurpose of review
Owing to growing interest in uterine preservation, this evidence-based review compares hysteropexy with hysterectomy during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse.Recent findings
LeFort colpocleisis is preferred over vaginal hysterectomy and total colpocleisis. The majority of studies show no differences in outcomes comparing sacrospinous hysteropexy with vaginal hysterectomy native tissue prolapse repair except for a single randomized controlled trial showing increased apical recurrences with advanced prolapse. Results comparing uterosacral hysteropexy and sacral hysteropexy with hysterectomy native tissue repairs are inconclusive. Potentially better outcomes are reported when laparoscopic hysterectomy (total or supracervical) is performed with sacral colpopexy compared with laparoscopic sacral hysteropexy, but mesh and morcellation risks should be considered. Data comparing vaginal mesh hysteropexy with currently available products with hysterectomy prolapse repairs are lacking but a high-quality study is underway.Summary
High satisfaction and low reoperation rates can be accomplished using a variety of hysteropexy techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of uterine conservation must be considered when planning uterovaginal prolapse surgery. The type of hysteropexy and possible graft configuration may impact reoperation rates for recurrent prolapse. Vaginal mesh risks must be considered and laparoscopic mesh risks must be balanced with potential difficulty of future hysterectomy if needed.