The Role of Uterine Preservation at the Time of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to synthesize the current literature and provide surgeons with data to inform counseling of eligible patients for uterine-preserving prolapse surgery (UPPS).

METHODS

We compared UPPS to similar techniques incorporating hysterectomy, including native-tissue repairs by vaginal, laparoscopic, or open approach; mesh-reinforced repairs by vaginal, laparoscopic, or open approach; obliterative repairs; and the Manchester procedure. Reviewed outcomes include surgical and patient-reported outcomes, complications, uterine pathology, and sexual function. We conducted a structured literature search of English language articles published 1990-2023, combining MeSH terms for pelvic organ prolapse and UPPS. Data were categorized by procedure and approach, and evaluated to provide recommendations and strength of evidence based on group consensus.

RESULTS

Patient counseling on prolapse surgery should follow a benefit/risk assessment related to techniques that preserve the uterus. The discussion should include the benefits of hysterectomy for cancer detection and prevention and acknowledgment that patients should continue cervical cancer screening and evaluation of abnormal uterine bleeding following UPPS. The rate of hysterectomy after UPPS is low and most commonly for recurrent prolapse. If cervical elongation is present, trachelectomy should be considered at the time of UPPS. There is no difference in sexual function between UPPS and prolapse repair with hysterectomy. Data on pregnancy outcomes following UPPS are limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine-preserving prolapse surgery should be a surgical option for all patients considering surgical treatment for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse unless contraindications exist. Uterine-preserving prolapse surgery should be offered using an individualized benefit and risk discussion of both approaches to help patients make an informed decision based on their own values.