Cited by 31Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsGynecological conditions and treatments

Transvaginal uterosacral ligament hysteropexy: a retrospective feasibility study

Milani, Rodolfo, Frigerio, Matteo, Manodoro, Stefano, Cola, Alice, Spelzini, Federico·2017·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Uterine-sparing procedures could be attractive in patients concerned about preservation of fertility and change in corporeal image and sexuality. Transvaginal uterosacral hysteropexy can provide an alternative mesh-free technique for uterine suspension. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of transvaginal uterine suspension to uterosacral ligaments in terms of operative data, complications, midterm efficacy, and patient satisfaction. Materials and methods This retrospective study analyzed the first 20 cases of transvaginal hysteropexy through bilateral high uterosacral ligaments (modified Shull technique) performed in our Institution. Results Mean follow-up was 33.2 months. The procedure was performed in 84 ± 19 min ,and blood loss was 228 ± 139 ml. Three mild complications (15 %) were observed. Recurrence [Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q) stage ≥ II was observed in five patients (25 %), and three of them (15 %) required reintervention. Mean Patient Global Impression of Improvement score was "much improved." Two woman (40 %) who had not fulfilled their childbearing desire obtained a pregnancy. Both underwent elective caesarean section at term. Conclusions Transvaginal uterosacral hysteropexy appears a feasible mesh-free technique for apical support. This procedure can be indicated in women with the desire of preserving fertility or who prefer a uterine-sparing surgical option.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-016-3036-2

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Milani, R., Frigerio, M., Manodoro, S., Cola, A., & Spelzini, F.
Affiliations
Azienda Ospedaliera San Gerardo (IT)
Corresponding author
Manodoro, Stefano
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2016-05-19
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
73-76
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W2404395877
Cited by
31
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1
FWCI
4.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
none
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 › Gynecological conditions and treatments
Keywords
uterosacral ligament, uterine suspension, uterus-sparing surgery, fertility preservation, pelvic organ prolapse, apical pelvic organ prolapse, surgical complications, recurrence, patient satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adult, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Ligaments, Middle Aged, Laparoscopy, Retrospective Studies, Sacrum, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Uterine Prolapse, Uterus, Vagina, Treatment Outcome, Natural Orifice Endoscopic Surgery, Fertility Preservation, Organ Sparing Treatments

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