Manchester Procedure vs Sacrospinous Hysteropexy for Treatment of Uterine Descent: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In many countries, sacrospinous hysteropexy is the most commonly practiced uterus-preserving technique in women undergoing a first operation for pelvic organ prolapse. However, there are no direct comparisons of outcomes after sacrospinous hysteropexy vs an older technique, the Manchester procedure. Objective: To compare success of sacrospinous hysteropexy vs the Manchester procedure for the surgical treatment of uterine descent. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands among 434 adult patients undergoing a first surgical treatment for uterine descent that did not protrude beyond the hymen. Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to undergo sacrospinous hysteropexy (n = 217) or Manchester procedure (n = 217). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite outcome of success, defined as absence of pelvic organ prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment evaluated by a standardized vaginal support quantification system, absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, and absence of prolapse retreatment (pessary or surgery) within 2 years after the operation. The predefined noninferiority margin was 9%. Secondary outcomes were anatomical and patient-reported outcomes, perioperative parameters, and surgery-related complications. Results: Among 393 participants included in the as-randomized analysis (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 9.1 years]), 151 of 196 (77.0%) in the sacrospinous hysteropexy group and 172 of 197 (87.3%) in the Manchester procedure group achieved the composite outcome of success. Sacrospinous hysteropexy did not meet the noninferiority criterion of -9% for the lower limit of the CI (risk difference, -10.3%; 95% CI, -17.8% to -2.8%; P = .63 for noninferiority). At 2-year follow-up, perioperative outcomes and patient-reported outcomes did not differ between the 2 groups. Conclusions: Based on the composite outcome of surgical success 2 years after primary uterus-sparing pelvic organ prolapse surgery for uterine descent, these results support a finding that sacrospinous hysteropexy is inferior to the Manchester procedure. Trial Registration: TrialRegister.nl Identifier: NTR 6978.

The modified Manchester Fothergill procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with low uterosacral ligament suspension in patients with pelvic organ prolapse: long-term outcome.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to compare the long-term outcome between vaginal hysterectomy with low uterosacral ligament suspension (VH) and the modified Manchester Fothergill procedure (MF) as surgical treatment in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). We hypothesize that MF is non-inferior to VH in the long term. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective cohort study patients who underwent MF or VH for primary apical compartment prolapse between 2003 and 2009 were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was subjective recurrence of POP. Secondary outcomes included number and type of reinterventions, time to reintervention and the degree of complaints. RESULTS: One hundred sixty of 398 patients (53 MF, 107 VH) returned the questionnaires (40%). The mean follow-up was 12.97 years for MF and 13.24 years for VH (p = 0.38). There were similar rates of subjective POP recurrence (51% in both groups). The reintervention rate in the MF group was higher but reached no statistical significance [19/53 (36%) versus 29/107 (27%), p = 0.26]. Kaplan-Meier curve showed no statistically significant difference in risk of reintervention after MF at the maximum follow-up of 16.5 years [HR 1.830 (95% CI 0.934-3.586), p = 0.08]. The mean time to reintervention was 3 years shorter in the MF group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The subjective recurrence after MF is similar to VH in treatment of POP at the long term. MF appears to be non-inferior to VH when comparing the risk of reintervention. However, the small sample size precludes a definitive conclusion of non-inferiority, and future studies are needed.

Patient's preference for sacrospinous hysteropexy or modified Manchester operation: A discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate women's preference for modified Manchester (MM) or sacrospinous hysteropexy (SH) as surgery for uterine prolapse. DESIGN: Labelled discrete choice experiment (DCE). SETTING: Eight Dutch hospitals. POPULATION: Women with uterine prolapse, eligible for primary surgery and preference for uterus preservation. METHODS: DCEs are attribute-based surveys. The two treatment options were labelled as MM and SH. Attributes in this survey were treatment success ( levels SH: 84%, 89%, 94%; levels MM: 89%, 93%, 96%), dyspareunia (levels: 0%, 5%, 10%), cervical stenosis (levels: 1%, 6%, 11%) and severe buttock pain (levels: 0%, 1%). A different combination of attribute levels was used in each choice set. Women completed nine choice sets, making a choice based on attribute levels. Data were analysed in multinomial logit models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's preference for MM or SH. RESULTS: 137 DCEs were completed (1233 choice sets). SH was chosen in 49% of the choice sets, MM in 51%. Of all women, 39 (28%) always chose the same surgery. After exclusion of this group, 882 choice sets were analysed, in which women preferred MM, likely associated with a labelling effect, i.e. description of the procedure, rather than the tested attributes. In that group, MM was chosen in 53% of the choice sets and SH in 47%. When choosing MM, next to the label, dyspareunia was relevant for decision-making. For SH, all attributes were relevant for decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: The preference of women for MM or SH seems almost equally divided. The variety in preference supports the importance of individualised healthcare.

Risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To update a previously published systematic review and perform a meta-analysis on the risk factors for primary pelvic organ prolapse and prolapse recurrence. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase were systematically searched. We searched from July 1, 2014 until July 5, 2021. The previous search was from inception until August 4, 2014. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials and cross-sectional and cohort studies conducted in the Western developed countries that reported on multivariable analysis of risk factors for primary prolapse or prolapse recurrence were included. The definition of prolapse was based on anatomic references, and prolapse recurrence was defined as anatomic recurrence after native tissue repair. Studies on prolapse recurrence with a median follow-up of ≥1 year after surgery were included. METHODS: Quality assessment was performed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data from the previous review and this review were combined into forest plots, and meta-analyses were performed where possible. If the data could not be pooled, "confirmed risk factors" were identified if ≥2 studies reported a significant association in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: After screening, 14 additional studies were selected-8 on the risk factors for primary prolapse and 6 on prolapse recurrence. Combined with the results from the previous review, 27 studies met the inclusion criteria, representing the data of 47,429 women. Not all studies could be pooled because of heterogeneity. Meta-analyses showed that birthweight (n=3, odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.06), age (n=3, odds ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-1.47), body mass index (n=2, odds ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.62), and levator defect (n=2, odds ratio, 3.99; 95% confidence interval, 2.57-6.18) are statistically significant risk factors, and cesarean delivery (n=2, pooled odds ratio, 0.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.03-0.20) and smoking (n=3, odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.75) are protective factors for primary prolapse. Parity, vaginal delivery, and levator hiatal area are identified as "confirmed risk factors." For prolapse recurrence, preoperative prolapse stage (n=5, odds ratio, 2.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.93-3.73) and age (n=2, odds ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-6.08) are statistically significant risk factors. CONCLUSION: Vaginal delivery, parity, birthweight, age, body mass index, levator defect, and levator hiatal area are risk factors, and cesarean delivery and smoking are protective factors for primary prolapse. Preoperative prolapse stage and younger age are risk factors for prolapse recurrence after native tissue surgery.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness and success of uterus preserving sacrospinous hysteropexy as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse five years after surgery. DESIGN: Observational follow-up of SAVE U (sacrospinous fixation versus vaginal hysterectomy in treatment of uterine prolapse ≥2) randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Four non-university teaching hospitals, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 204 of 208 healthy women in the initial trial (2009-12) with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher requiring surgery and no history of pelvic floor surgery who had been randomised to sacrospinous hysteropexy or vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. The women were followed annually for five years after surgery. This extended trial reports the results at five years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prespecified primary outcome evaluated at five year follow-up was recurrent prolapse of the uterus or vaginal vault (apical compartment) stage 2 or higher evaluated by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in combination with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery for recurrent apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes were overall anatomical failure (recurrent prolapse stage 2 or higher in apical, anterior, or posterior compartment), composite outcome of success (defined as no prolapse beyond the hymen, no bothersome bulge symptoms, and no repeat surgery or pessary use for recurrent prolapse), functional outcome, quality of life, repeat surgery, and sexual functioning. RESULTS: At five years, surgical failure of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery occurred in one woman (1%) after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with eight women (7.8%) after vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (difference-6.7%, 95% confidence interval -12.8% to-0.7%). A statistically significant difference was found in composite outcome of success between sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy (89/102 (87%) v 77/102 (76%). The other secondary outcomes did not differ. Time-to-event analysis at five years showed no differences between the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: At five year follow-up significantly less anatomical recurrences of the apical compartment with bothersome bulge symptoms or repeat surgery were found after sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension. After hysteropexy a higher proportion of women had a composite outcome of success. Time-to-event analysis showed no differences in outcomes between the procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: trialregister.nl NTR1866.

Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study).

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to 40% of parous women which adversely affects the quality of life. During a life time, 20% of all women will undergo an operation. In general the guidelines advise a vaginal operation in case of uterine descent: hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament plication (VH), sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) or a modified Manchester operation (MM). In the last decade, renewed interest in uterus sparing techniques has been observed. Previous studies have shown non-inferiority between SSH and VH. Whether or not SSH and MM are comparable concerning anatomical and functional outcome is still unknown. The practical application of both operations is at least in The Netherlands a known cause of practice pattern variation (PPV). To reveal any difference between both techniques the SAM-study was designed. METHODS: The SAM-study is a randomized controlled multicentre non-inferiority study which compares SSH and MM. Women with symptomatic POP in any stage, uterine descent and POP-Quantification (POP-Q) point D at ≤ minus 1 cm are eligible. The primary outcome is the composite outcome at two years of absence of prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment, the absence of bulge symptoms and absence of reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary outcomes are hospital parameters, surgery related morbidity/complications, pain perception, further treatments for prolapse or urinary incontinence, POP-Q anatomy in all compartments, quality-of-life, sexual function, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up takes place at 6 weeks, 12 and 24 months. Additionally at 12 weeks, 6 and 9 months cost-effectiveness will be assessed. Validated questionnaires will be used and gynaecological examination will be performed. Analysis will be performed following the intention-to-treat and per protocol principle. With a non-inferiority margin of 9% and an expected loss to follow-up of 10%, 424 women will be needed to prove non-inferiority with a confidence interval of 95%. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness and costs of SSH versus MM in women with primary POP. The evidence will show whether the existing PPV is detrimental and a de-implementation process regarding one of the operations is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 6978, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 29 January 2018. Prospectively registered.