S'abonner

Surgical retreatment after native-tissue apical prolapse surgery with hysterectomy vs hysteropexy - 22/08/25

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2025.03.003 
Olivia H. Chang, MD, MPH a, , Cassie Ford, PhD b, Jennifer M. Wu, MD, MPH c, Lauren A. Cadish, MD, MAS d, J. Eric Jelovsek, MD, MMEd, MSDS e
a Center for Pelvic Floor Disorders Research, Division of Female urology and voiding dysfunction, Department of Urology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 
b Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, NC 
c Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 
d Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles General Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA 
e Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC 

Corresponding author: Olivia H. Chang, MD, MPH.

Abstract

Background

Interest in uterine-sparing procedures has increased due to the potential for lower blood loss and shorter operative time. Surgical efficacy of hysteropexy relative to traditional hysterectomy-based prolapse procedure remains uncertain over the long-term.

Objective

The objective of our study was to determine if there is a difference in the rate of surgical retreatment for prolapse after native-tissue apical prolapse surgery with hysterectomy vs uterine preservation.

Study Design

This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing the Medicare 5% Limited Data Set from 2010 to 2019. We included all female patients aged 65 years or older with a diagnosis of uterovaginal prolapse who underwent an apical native-tissue prolapse procedure (extraperitoneal or intraperitoneal colpopexy). We excluded those with transvaginal mesh, concurrent colorectal or oncologic surgeries, obliterative procedures, and abdominal hysterectomies. All patients were followed from the index procedure until death or loss to follow-up. We compared those who had a hysteropexy vs those who underwent a concurrent vaginal or minimally invasive hysterectomy. The primary outcome was surgical retreatment for pelvic organ prolapse defined as any subsequent surgical treatment of anterior, apical, or posterior compartment prolapse after the index surgery. Time-to-event analysis was performed, and the 2 groups were compared using Cox regression analysis adjusting for covariates.

Results

We identified 2341 patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria (hysteropexy = 584 vs hysterectomy = 1757). Patients in the hysteropexy group were older (73.4 vs 71.8 years, P < .001) and predominantly located in the South (46.2% vs 34.1%, P < .001). The mean Charlson comorbidity index score was higher for hysteropexy patients (1.6 vs 1.3, P =.003). At 5 years, 9.1% (n=40) had surgical retreatment for prolapse in the hysteropexy group compared to 6.7% (n=91) for the hysterectomy group ( P =.07). With adjustment for age, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Dual Medicare/Medicaid status, race, and region, those with a hysteropexy had higher risk of surgical retreatment than those with a hysterectomy (adjusted odds ratio 1.52,1.04–2.21, P =.03). For those in the hysteropexy group, the rate of subsequent hysterectomy in the 5 years following index surgery was 3.4% (n=14). When stratified by intraperitoneal (n=120) or extraperitoneal hysteropexy (n=464), there were no significant differences in rates of surgical retreatment between the 2 modes of apical suspension ( P =.49). The composite rate of surgical retreatment including prolapse retreatment or hysterectomy or uterine/cervical related procedures was 42 (9.7%) for the hysteropexy group and 94 (7.0%) for the hysterectomy group ( P =.049)

Conclusion

In this Medicare database, there was a higher risk of surgical retreatment for prolapse in those who had a hysteropexy compared to those who had a hysterectomy at the time of native-tissue prolapse surgery though the absolute difference is small. For those who had a hysteropexy, 3% of patients required a hysterectomy in the 5 years following index surgery.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words: : hysterectomy, hysteropexy, pelvic organ prolapse, uterine preservation


Plan


  J. E. J. reports receiving institutional research funding from NICHD , NIDDK ; royalties from UpToDate; and serving in the advisory board of Collamedix. O. H. C., C. F., J. M. W., and L. A. C. report no conflict of interest.
  This study was supported by the NIH R25-HD094667 grant
  Cite this article as: Chang OH, Ford C, Wu JM, et al. Surgical retreatment after native-tissue apical prolapse surgery with hysterectomy vs hysteropexy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2025;233:176.e1-6.


© 2025  Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 233 - N° 3

P. 176.e1-176.e6 - septembre 2025 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Evidence for improved glucose metrics and perinatal outcomes with continuous glucose monitoring compared to self-monitoring in diabetes during pregnancy
  • Jessica Burk, Glynis P. Ross, Teri L. Hernandez, Stephen Colagiuri, Arianne Sweeting
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Association of catechol-O-methyltransferase genetic polymorphism with neuromodulation treatment response in women with fecal or urinary incontinence
  • Maria E. Florian-Rodriguez, Holly E. Richter, Megan U. Carnes, Halina Zyczynski, Emily S. Lukacz, Anthony Visco, Lily Arya, Vivian Sung, Donna Mazloomdoost, Marie G. Gantz, Eunice Kennedy Shriver NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, Danielle Aaron, Kathy Carter, David Ellington, Ryanne Johnson, Alayne Markland, Jeannine McCormick, Isuzu Meyer, R. Edward Varner, Robin Willingham, Cassandra Carberry, B. Star Hampton, Nicole Korbly, Ann Schantz Meers, Deborah L. Myers, Charles R. Rardin, Kyle Wohlrab, Sarashwathy K. Veera, Elizabeth-Ann R. Viscione, Michael Albo, Marianna Alperin, Stephanie Armstrong, Laura Aughinbaugh, Linda Brubaker, Tatiana Catanzarite, Kyle Herrala, Stephanie Micucci, Charles Nager, Dulce Rodriguez-Ponciano, Sandra Romano, Erika Ruppert, Yahir Santiago-Lastra, Keisha Dyer, Shawn Menefee, Jasmine Tan-Kim, Kimberly Ferrante, Gouri Diwadkar, Christina Doan, Rebekah Dozier, Alyssa David-Tucker, Josephine Salunga, Lynn Hall, Gisselle Zazueta, Linda Mackinnon, Cindy L. Amundsen, Matthew D. Barber, Yasmeen Bruton, Nortorious Coleman-Taylor, Cassandra Hanson, John E. Jelovsek, Amy Kavanagh, Amie Kawasaki, Shantae McLean, Tracey O'Dowd, John Owens, Nazema Y. Siddiqui, Katelyn C. Smith, Alison C. Weidner, Uduak Andy, Yelizaveta Borodyanskaya, Lorraine Flick, Heidi Harvie, Zandra Kennedy, Mary Ackenbom, Kara Albrecht, Lindsey Baranski, Michael Bonidie, Megan Bradley, Alexus Bushee, Pamela Fairchild, Judy Gruss, Beth Klump, Lauren Kunkle, Jacqueline Noel, Pamela Moalli, Margaret Rajkovic, Shanna Atnip, Sunil Balgobin, Juanita Bonilla, Agnes Burris, Marlene Corton, Christy Hegan, Priscilla Reynolds, Joseph Schaffer, Alison Schmitt, Clifford Wai, Andrew Burd, Kate Burdekin, Kendra Glass, Brenda Hair, Michael Ham, Pooja Iyer, James Pickett, Peter Robbins, Amanda Shaffer, Taylor Swankie, Yan Chen Tang, Sonia Thomas, Kevin Wilson, Dennis Wallace, Paul Tulikangas, Jenifer D. Ihm, Lan Kong, Donna McClish, Katharine O'Dell, Lea Perez, Leslie Rickey, David Shade, Ashok Tuteja, Susan Yount

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.