These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Does hysterectomy modifies the anatomical and functional outcomes of prolapse surgery?: Clinical Practice Guidelines].
    Author: Cayrac M, Warembourg S, Le Normand L, Fatton B.
    Journal: Prog Urol; 2016 Jul; 26 Suppl 1():S73-88. PubMed ID: 27595628.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Provide guidelines for clinical practice concerning hysterectomy during surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolaps, with or without mesh. METHODS: Systematically review of the literature concerning anatomical and functionnal results of uterine conservation or hysterectomie during surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolaps. RESULTS: Sacrospinous hysteropexy is as effective as vaginal hysterectomy and repair in retrospective comparative studies and in a meta-analysis with reduced operating time, blood loss and recovery time (NP2). However, in a single RCT there was a higher recurrence rate associated with sacrospinous hysteropexy compared with vaginal hysterectomy. Sacrospinous hysteropexy with mesh augmentation of the anterior compartment was as effective as hysterectomy and mesh augmentation (NP2), with no significant difference in the rate of mesh exposure between the groups (NP3). Sacral hysteropexy is as effective as sacral colpopexy and hysterectomy in anatomical outcomes; however, the sacral colpopexy and hysterectomy were associated with increase operating time and blood loss (NP1). Performing hysterectomy at sacral colpopexy was associated with a higher risk of mesh exposure compared with sacral colpopexy without hysterectomy (NP3). There is no sufficient data in the literature to affirm that the uterine conservation improve sexual function (NP3). CONCLUSION: While uterine preservation is a viable option for the surgical management of uterine prolapse the evidence on safety and efficacy is currently lacking. © 2016 Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]