Review Article| Volume 267, P90-98, December 2021

Complications and objective outcomes of uterine preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse versus procedures removing the Uterus, a systematic review

Published:October 22, 2021DOI:



      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.


      We performed a systematic literature search in, 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.


      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]).


      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.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


        • Haylen B.T.
        • Maher C.F.
        • Barber M.D.
        • Camargo S.
        • Dandolu V.
        • Digesu A.
        • et al.
        An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP).
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2016; 35: 137-168
      1. Avcıbay Vurgeç B, Kızılkaya Beji N. İleri Evre Pelvik Organ Proplapsusu Olan Kadınlarda Yaşam Kalitesi Ve Cinsel Yaşam. Cukurova Med J 2018;43(Ek 1):230–9.

        • Barber M.D.
        • Maher C.
        Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013; 24: 1783-1790
        • Weintraub A.Y.
        • Glinter H.
        • Marcus-Braun N.
        Narrative review of the epidemiology, diagnosis and pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse.
        Int Braz J Urol. 2020; 46: 5-14
        • Slieker-ten Hove M.C.P.
        • Pool-Goudzwaard A.L.
        • Eijkemans M.J.C.
        • Steegers-Theunissen R.P.M.
        • Burger C.W.
        • Vierhout M.E.
        The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2009; 20: 1037-1045
        • Walker G.J.A.
        • Gunasekera P.
        Pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in developing countries: review of prevalence and risk factors.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22: 127-135
        • Masenga G.G.
        • Shayo B.C.
        • Rasch V.
        • Ryckman K.K.
        Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania: a population based study in Tanzanian rural community.
        PLoS One. 2018; 13: e0195910
        • Belayneh T.
        • Gebeyehu A.
        • Adefris M.
        • Rortveit G.
        • Awoke T.
        Pelvic organ prolapse in Northwest Ethiopia: a population-based study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2020; 31: 1873-1881
        • Jefferis H.
        • Jackson S.R.
        • Price N.
        Management of uterine prolapse: is hysterectomy necessary?.
        Obstet Gynaecol. 2016; 18: 17-23
        • Kuncharapu I.
        • Majeroni B.A.
        • Johnson D.W.
        Pelvic organ prolapse.
        Am Fam Physician. 2010; 81: 1111-1117
        • Olsen A.
        • Smith V.
        • Bergstrom J.
        • Colling J.
        • Clark A.
        Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89: 501-506
        • Dällenbach P.
        • Kaelin-Gambirasio I.
        • Jacob S.
        • Dubuisson J.-B.
        • Boulvain M.
        Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse repair after hysterectomy.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2008; 19: 1623-1629
        • Korbly N.B.
        • Kassis N.C.
        • Good M.M.
        • Richardson M.L.
        • Book N.M.
        • Yip S.
        • et al.
        Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 470.e1-470.e6
        • Maher C.
        • Feiner B.
        • Baessler K.
        • Haya N.
        • Brown J.
        Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse (Review) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR THE MAIN COMPARISON.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;
      2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group TP. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses : The PRISMA Statement. 2009;6(7).

      3. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Vol. Version 5., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. 2008.

      4. Green S, Higgins P. Julian T, Alderson P, Clarke M, Mulrow D C, Oxman D A. Cochrane Handbook: Cochrane Reviews: Ch 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for: Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011. p. 3–10.

        • Wan X.
        • Wang W.
        • Liu J.
        • Tong T.
        Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 14: 135
        • Egger M.
        • Smith G.D.
        • Schneider M.
        • Minder C.
        Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test.
        BMJ. 1997; 315: 629-634
        • Carramão S.
        • Auge A.P.
        • Pacetta A.M.
        • Duarte E.
        • Ayrosa P.
        • Lemos N.L.
        • et al.
        A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of uterine prolapse using polypropylene mesh: hysteropexy versus hysterectomy.
        Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes. 2009; 36: 65-72
        • de Castro E.B.
        • Brito L.G.O.
        • Juliato C.R.T.
        Vaginal hysterectomy with bilateral sacrospinous fixation plus an anterior mesh versus abdominal sacrocervicopexy for the treatment of primary apical prolapse in postmenopausal women: a randomized controlled study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2020; 31: 365-372
        • Rahmanou P.
        • Price N.
        • Jackson S.R.
        Laparoscopic hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse: a prospective randomized pilot study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 1687-1694
        • Roovers J.P.W.R.
        • van der Bom J.G.
        • van der Vaart C.H.
        • van Leeuwen J.H.S.
        • Scholten P.C.
        • Heintz A.P.M.
        A randomized comparison of post-operative pain, quality of life, and physical performance during the first 6 weeks after abdominal or vaginal surgical correction of descensus uteri.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2005; 24: 334-340
        • Roovers J.-P.
        • Vaart C.H.
        • Bom J.G.
        • Schagen van Leeuwen J.H.
        • Scholten P.C.
        • Heintz A.P.M.
        A randomised controlled trial comparing abdominal and vaginal prolapse surgery: effects on urogenital function.
        BJOG. 2004; 111: 50-56
        • Armstrong K.L.
        • Modest A.M.
        • Rosenblatt P.L.
        Laparoscopic cerclage sacrohysteropexy: comparing a novel technique for sacrohysteropexy to traditional supracervical hysterectomy and sacrocervicopexy.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstructive Surgery. 2021; 27: e315-e320
      5. Schulten SF, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HW. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ 2019;366.

        • Detollenaere R.J.
        • den Boon J.
        • Stekelenburg J.
        • IntHout J.
        • Vierhout M.E.
        • Kluivers K.B.
        • et al.
        Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.
        BMJ. 2015; 351h3717
        • Dietz V.
        • van der Vaart C.H.
        • van der Graaf Y.
        • Heintz P.
        • Schraffordt Koops S.E.
        One-year follow-up after sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy for uterine descent: a randomized study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 209-216
      6. E. Ünlübilgin, A.A. Sivaslioğlu, T.T. Ilhan, Y. Kumtepe ID. Which one is the appropriate approach for uterine prolapse: Manchester procedure or vaginal hysterectomy? Turkiye Klin J Med Sci. 2013;33:321–5.

        • Hemming C.
        • Constable L.
        • Goulao B.
        • Kilonzo M.
        • Boyers D.
        • Elders A.
        • et al.
        Surgical interventions for uterine prolapse and for vault prolapse: the two VUE RCTs.
        Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2020; 24: 1-219
        • Juneja M.
        • Munday D.
        • Kopetz V.
        • Barry C.
        Hysterectomy vs no hysterectomy for uterine prolapse in conjunction with posterior infracoccygeal colpopexy-a randomised pilot study 12 months review.
        Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2011; 22: S903-S904
        • Kulkarni M.
        • Young N.
        • Lee J.
        • Rosamilia A.
        Hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension or UpholdTM hysteropexy in women with apical prolapse: a parallel cohort study.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2020; 31: 2137-2146
        • Malandri M.
        • Iordanidou E.
        • Takou M.
        • Moraitis DB B.
        A randomized comparison of two vaginal procedures for the treatment of stage two, or higher uterine prolapse: hysterectomy with mesh vs only mesh implantation.
        Neurourol Urodyn. 2012; 31: 855
        • Nager C.W.
        • Visco A.G.
        • Richter H.E.
        • Rardin C.R.
        • Rogers R.G.
        • Harvie H.S.
        • et al.
        Effect of vaginal mesh hysteropexy vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: as randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA. 2019; 322: 1054
        • Kapoor S.
        • Sivanesan K.
        Sacrospinous hysteropexy: review and meta-analysis of outcomes.
        Int Urogynecol. 2017; : 1285-1294
        • de Oliveira S.A.
        • Fonseca M.C.
        • Bortolini M.A.
        • Girão M.J.
        • Roque M.T.
        • Castro R.A.
        Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28: 1617-1630
        • Kim-fine S.
        • Balk E.M.
        • Murphy M.
        Systematic Reviews Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 219: 129-146.e2
        • Meriwether K.V.
        • Balk E.M.
        • Antosh D.D.
        • Olivera C.K.
        • Kim-Fine S.
        • Murphy M.
        • et al.
        Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2019; 30: 505-522
        • Qatawneh A.
        • Thekrallah F.
        • Bata M.
        • Al-kazaleh F.
        • Almustafa M.
        • Abu-kader I.
        Risk factors of surgical failure following sacrospinous colpopexy for the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 287: 1159-1165
        • Sheng Q.
        • Ma N.
        • Huang H.
        • Xu B.
        • He C.
        • Song Y.
        Significance of preoperative calculation of uterine weight as an indicator for preserving the uterus in pelvic reconstructive surgery.
        Int J Clin Exp Path. 2015; 8: 900
        • Jirschele K.
        • Seitz M.
        • Zhou Y.
        • Rosenblatt P.
        • Culligan P.
        • Sand P.
        A multicenter, prospective trial to evaluate mesh-augmented sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterovaginal prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 743-748
        • Gutman R.
        • Maher C.
        Uterine-preserving POP surgery.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24: 1803-1813
        • Rahmanou P.
        • White B.
        • Price N.
        • Jackson S.
        Laparoscopic hysteropexy: 1-to 4-year follow-up of women postoperatively.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25: 131-138
        • Renganathan A.
        • Edwards R.
        • Duckett J.R.
        Uterus conserving prolapse surgery—what is the chance of missing a malignancy?.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21: 819-821