Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review. (December 2021)
- Record Type:
- Journal Article
- Title:
- Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review. (December 2021)
- Main Title:
- Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review
- Authors:
- Azadi, Ali
Marchand, Greg
Masoud, Ahmed Taher
Sainz, Katelyn
Govindan, Malini
Ware, Kelly
King, Alexa
Ruther, Stacy
Brazil, Giovanna
Calteux, Nicolas
Ulibarri, Hollie
Parise, Julia
Arroyo, Amanda
Coriell, Catherine
Goetz, Sydnee
Ostergard, Donald R. - Abstract:
- Abstract: Background: Several authors have recently compared the outcomes and complications of surgical procedures that preserve or remove the uterus in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following the publication of several high quality randomized control trials on this topic we performed a new systematic review and meta analysis of this data. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, EBSCO host, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled and cohort trials of uterine sparing prolapse repair (hysteropexy) versus hysterectomy with suspension. A total of 1285 patients from 14 studies were included in our systematic review and meta -analysis. Results: Uterine sparing procedures (hysteropexy) were comparable to hysterectomy with suspension for recurrence rates (RR = 0.908, 95% CI [0.385, 2.143]), reoperation rates (RR = 1.517, 95% CI [0.802, 2.868]), length of hospital stay, (SMD = − 0.159 days, 95% CI [−0.375, 0.057]), voiding dysfunction (RR = 1.089, 95% CI [0.695, 1.706]), and intraoperative blood loss (SMD = − 0.339, 95% CI [−0.631, 0.047]). However, hysteropexy had shorter operative time than hysterectomy with suspension (SMD = − 1.191 h, 95% CI [−1.836, −0.545]), and fewer visceral injuries (RR = 0.421, 95% CI [0.244, 0.725]). Conclusion: We found no significant differences in the outcomes or major complications of uterineAbstract: Background: Several authors have recently compared the outcomes and complications of surgical procedures that preserve or remove the uterus in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Following the publication of several high quality randomized control trials on this topic we performed a new systematic review and meta analysis of this data. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search in ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid, EBSCO host, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for randomized controlled and cohort trials of uterine sparing prolapse repair (hysteropexy) versus hysterectomy with suspension. A total of 1285 patients from 14 studies were included in our systematic review and meta -analysis. Results: Uterine sparing procedures (hysteropexy) were comparable to hysterectomy with suspension for recurrence rates (RR = 0.908, 95% CI [0.385, 2.143]), reoperation rates (RR = 1.517, 95% CI [0.802, 2.868]), length of hospital stay, (SMD = − 0.159 days, 95% CI [−0.375, 0.057]), voiding dysfunction (RR = 1.089, 95% CI [0.695, 1.706]), and intraoperative blood loss (SMD = − 0.339, 95% CI [−0.631, 0.047]). However, hysteropexy had shorter operative time than hysterectomy with suspension (SMD = − 1.191 h, 95% CI [−1.836, −0.545]), and fewer visceral injuries (RR = 0.421, 95% CI [0.244, 0.725]). Conclusion: We found no significant differences in the outcomes or major complications of uterine preserving surgical procedures versus those which include hysterectomy in the treatment of POP. Hysteropexy procedures may be associated with a shorter operative time and fewer visceral injuries. This is consistent with older analyses. … (more)
- Is Part Of:
- European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. Volume 267(2021)
- Journal:
- European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology
- Issue:
- Volume 267(2021)
- Issue Display:
- Volume 267, Issue 2021 (2021)
- Year:
- 2021
- Volume:
- 267
- Issue:
- 2021
- Issue Sort Value:
- 2021-0267-2021-0000
- Page Start:
- 90
- Page End:
- 98
- Publication Date:
- 2021-12
- Subjects:
- Hysteropexy -- Hysterectomy -- Pelvic organ prolapse -- Uterine preservation -- Sacrospinous hysteropexy -- Meta-analysis
Obstetrics -- Periodicals
Gynecology -- Periodicals
Reproductive health -- Periodicals
Gynecology -- Periodicals
Obstetrics -- Periodicals
Reproduction -- Periodicals
Obstétrique -- Périodiques
Gynécologie -- Périodiques
Reproduction -- Périodiques
Verloskunde
Gynaecologie
Voortplanting (biologie)
Gynecology
Obstetrics
Reproduction
Electronic journals
Periodicals
Electronic journals
618.05 - Journal URLs:
- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03012115 ↗
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/00282243 ↗
http://www.clinicalkey.com/dura/browse/journalIssue/03012115 ↗
http://www.clinicalkey.com.au/dura/browse/journalIssue/03012115 ↗
http://www.elsevier.com/journals ↗ - DOI:
- 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.10.020 ↗
- Languages:
- English
- ISSNs:
- 0301-2115
- Deposit Type:
- Legaldeposit
- View Content:
- Available online (eLD content is only available in our Reading Rooms) ↗
- Physical Locations:
- British Library DSC - 3829.733000
British Library DSC - BLDSS-3PM
British Library HMNTS - ELD Digital store - Ingest File:
- 19993.xml