Abdominal sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse in young women
Keywords:Abdominal sacrohysteropexy, Anatomical outcome, Functional outcome, Pelvic organ prolapse, Pelvic organ prolapse- quantification, Vaginal hysterectomy
Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is the descent of the pelvic organs beyond their anatomical confines. The definitive treatment of symptomatic prolapse is surgery but its management in young is unique due to various considerations. Aim of this study was to evaluate anatomical and functional outcome after abdominal sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse in young women.
Methods: A total 27 women less than 35 years of age with pelvic organ prolapse underwent either abdominal sacrohysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with repair. In all women, pre-op and post-op POP-Q was done for evaluation of anatomical defect and a validated questionnaire was given for subjective outcome.
Results: Anatomical outcome was significant in both groups as per POP-Q grading but the symptomatic outcome was better for sacrohysteropexy with regard to surgical time, bleeding, ovarian conservation, urinary symptoms, sexual function.
Conclusions: Sacrohysteropexy is a better option.
Downing KT. Uterine prolapse: from antiquity to today. Obstet Gynecol Inter. 2012:Article ID 649459:9.
Thakare PY, Mahale AR. Assessment of prolapse by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) System. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res. June 2014:3(3):324-30.
ACOG (American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology) practice bulletin - clinical management guidelines for obstetrician and gynecologist. Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;110(3):717-27.
Olsen AL, Smith VG, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501-6.
Vandana D, Shakun S, Rachna C, Manisha S, Singh M. Association between the standardized pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q) and Shaw’s system of classification for pelvic organ prolapse. Indian J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2017;4(2):166-70.
Samuelsson EC, Arne Victor FT, Tibblin G, Svardsudd 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;180(2):299-305.
Jackson SR, Avery NC, Tarlton JF, Eckford SD, Abrams P, Bailey AJ. Changes in metabolism of collagen in genitourinary prolapse. Lancet. 1996;34:1658-61.
Versi E, Cardozo L, Brincat M, Cooper D, Montgomery J, Studd J. Correlation of uretral physiology and skin collagen in postmenopausal women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988;95:147-52.
Pandit SN. Introduction. In: Pandit SN, eds. Pelvic Organ Prolapse. 1st Ed. India, National; 2013:1-2.
Campeau L, Gorbachinsky I, Badlani GH, Andersson K. Pelvic floor disorders: linking genetic risk factors to biochemical changes. BJU Int. 2011;108:1240-7.
Bortolini MA, Rizk DE. Genetics of pelvic organ prolapse: crossing the bridge between bench and bedside in urogynecologic research. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:1211-9.
Khan A, Jaleel R, Nasrullah FD. Sacrohysteropexy performed as uterus conserving surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: Review Case Files. Pak J Med Sci. 2016;32(5):1174-8.
Tahir S, Yasmin N, Kanwal S, Aleem M. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse. APMC. 2012;6(1):75-80.
Barranger E, Fritel X, Pigne A. Abdominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse; long term follow up. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:1245-50.
Demirci F, Ozdemir. Adominal sacrohysteropexy in young women with uterovaginal prolapse: result of 20 cases. J Reprod Med. 2006;51:539-43.