Vaginal mesh hysteropexy
Hysteropexy using vaginal mesh is limited in the United States given the removal of vaginal mesh kits from the market by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2019. However, a Pelvic Floor Disorders Network randomized trial compared vaginal mesh hysteropexy using the Uphold LITE transvaginal mesh support system (Boston Scientific) and vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension.29 At 5 years, mesh hysteropexy had fewer failures than hysterectomy (37% vs 54%) and there was no difference in retreatment (9% vs 13%). The authors noted an 8% mesh exposure rate in the mesh hysteropexy group but 12% granulation tissue and 21% suture exposure rate in the hysterectomy group.29
While vaginal mesh hysteropexy was effective in the treatment of apical prolapse, the elevated mesh exposure rate and postoperative complications ultimately led to its removal from the market.
Sacrohysteropexy
Lastly, prolapse surgery with uterine preservation may be accomplished abdominally, most commonly laparoscopically with or without robotic assistance.
Sacrohysteropexy (SHP) involves the attachment of permanent synthetic mesh posteriorly to the posterior vagina and cervix with or without the additional placement of mesh to the anterior vagina and cervix. When the anterior mesh is placed, the arms are typically routed through the broad ligament bilaterally and joined with the posterior mesh for attachment to the anterior longitudinal ligament, overlying the sacrum.
Proponents of this technique endorse the use of mesh to augment already failing native tissues and propose similarities to the durability of sacrocolpopexy. While no randomized controlled trials have compared hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy or supracervical hysterectomy with sacrocolpopexy to sacrohysteropexy, a meta-analysis suggests that sacrohysteropexy may have a decreased risk of mesh exposure but a higher reoperation rate with lower anatomic success.9 Randomized trials that compared abdominal sacrohysteropexy with vaginal hysterectomy and suspension indicate that apical support may be improved with sacrohysteropexy,30 but reoperations, postoperative pain and disability, and urinary dysfunction was higher with SHP.31,32
What further research is needed?
With the increasing patient and clinician interest in uterine preservation, more research is needed to improve patient counseling and surgical planning. Much of the current research compares hysteropexy outcomes with those of traditional prolapse repairs with hysterectomy, with only a few randomized trials. We are lacking robust, prospective comparison studies between hysteropexy methods, especially vaginal native tissue techniques, long-term follow-up on the prevalence of uterine or cervical pathology after hysteropexy, and pregnancy or postpartum outcomes following uterine preservation surgery.
Currently, work is underway to validate and test the effectiveness of a questionnaire to evaluate the uterus’s importance to the patient seeking prolapse surgery in order to optimize counseling. The VUE trial, which randomizes women to vaginal hysterectomy with suspension versus various prolapse surgeries with uterine preservation, is continuing its 6-year follow-up.20 In the Netherlands, an ongoing randomized, controlled trial (the SAM trial) is comparing the Manchester procedure with sacrospinous hysteropexy and will follow patients up to 24 months.33 Fortunately, both of these trials are rigorously assessing both objective and patient-centered outcomes.
CASE Counseling helps the patient weigh surgical options
After thorough review of her surgical options, the patient elects for a uterine-preserving prolapse repair. She would like to have the most minimally invasive procedure and does not want any permanent mesh used. You suggest, and she agrees to, a sacrospinous ligament hysteropexy, as it is the current technique with the most robust data. ●