Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ?
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis The aim of this study is to assess the impact of hysterectomy on durability of uterine prolapse repair by comparing hysterectomy/uterosacral cuff suspension (VH) to a new vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy (USH).Methods A retrospective chart review of uterine prolapse patients after USH or VH with concomitant procedures as indicated was conducted, analyzing Baden-Walker grading of apex, anterior, and posterior compartments (Kaplan-Meier analysis) Baden et al. (Tex Med 64(5):56-58, 1968).Results A total of 200 charts met criteria. USH women weighed less, were younger, and more constipated with larger rectoceles. Levator parameters did not differ Romanzi et al. (Neurourol Urodyn 18(6):603-612, 1999). Baden-Walker data were entered at recurrence or minimum of 6 months (2.4 months-10 years; median, 1.5 years). All-apex durability was 96.4%, with no difference between hysteropexy and cuff suspension (96.0% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.90), cystocele (86.8% vs. 93.8%, p = 0.31), or rectocele (97.8% vs. 100%, p = 0.16) at 2 years.Conclusion In uterine prolapse patients, technically similar uterosacral hysteropexy durability did not differ from hysterectomy-based cuff suspension nor between cohorts for cystocele or rectocele.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Retrospective chart reviews found that vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy versus hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension had similar rates of apex durability, and laparoscopic uterine-preserving surgery compared to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension had similar rates of anatomic and clinical cure.
“A retrospective chart review (n¼200) found that vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy versus hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension had similar rates of apex durability (98.2% vs 96.4%, P¼0.90) defined as point C at or above the hymen.21 A retrospective chart review (n¼151) found that laparoscopic UP surgery compared to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension had similar rates of anatomic”
From Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a prospective cohort study (2025) · cites this paper as [21]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 18 · Cited by 46
- Authors
- Romanzi, L. J., & Tyagi, R.
- Affiliations
- NewYork–Presbyterian Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Romanzi, Lauri J.
- ORCID
- Romanzi, Lauri J.
- Venue
- International Urogynecology Journal
- Published
- 2012-02-07
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 625-631
- ISSN
- 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-3023
- OpenAlex
- W2096342393
- Cited by
- 46
- References
- 18
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 2
- FWCI
- 0.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Weill Cornell Medical College
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Ureteral procedures and complications
- Keywords
- uterine prolapse, hysteropexy, hysterectomy, vaginal hysterectomy, surgical durability, prolapse recurrence, cystocele, rectocele, levatorplasty
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Biomechanical Phenomena, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Longitudinal Studies, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Surgical Mesh, Uterine Prolapse, Treatment Outcome, Kaplan-Meier Estimate
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
