Cited by 44Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsGynecological conditions and treatments

Surgical treatment of primary uterine prolapse: a comparison of vaginal native tissue surgical techniques

Husby, Karen Ruben, Larsen, Michael Due, Lose, Gunnar, Klarskov, Niels·2019·International Urogynecology Journal

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis Uterine prolapse is a common diagnosis. Today no consensus exists on which operation technique is ideal to treat apical prolapse. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with suspension of the vaginal cuff is the most frequently used. The popularity of uterus-preserving techniques is increasing. The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of vaginal native tissue operations to treat primary apical prolapse, evaluated on risk of relapse surgery.Methods Data were obtained from the Danish National Patient Registry (NPR), which contains all operations performed in Denmark. Patients operated on for primary apical prolapse in Denmark 2010-2016 were included and followed until 2017. Clinical data were obtained from the Danish Urogynecological Database. Patients who were previously hysterectomized or operated on for prolapse in the apical compartment were excluded. Data were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis and adjusted for age, BMI, smoking, preoperative prolapse stage and previous POP operations.Results In total, 7247 operations were included. The hazard ratio (HR) for relapse operation in the apical compartment was significantly higher after sacrospinous hysteropexy (SH) compared with the Manchester-Fothergill procedure (MP) [40.2 confidence interval (CI) 21.6-74.7] and VH (8.5 CI: 6.0-12.1). Likewise, the HR was higher in the anterior compartment after SH compared with MP (4.3 CI: 2.9-6.4) and VH (2.8 CI: 2.0-4.0). No convincing difference was found in the posterior compartment. The 5-year reoperation rates were 30%, 7% and 11% after SH, MP, and VH, respectively.Conclusions Sacrospinous hysteropexy has exceedingly high numbers of reoperations due to prolapse recurrence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00192-019-03950-9

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Husby, K. R., Larsen, M. D., Lose, G., & Klarskov, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
Corresponding author
Husby, Karen Ruben
Venue
International Urogynecology Journal
Published
2019-05-03
Volume
30
Issue
11
Pages
1887-1893
ISSN
  • 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
  • 1433-3023
OpenAlex
W2942573671
Cited by
44
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Southern Denmark Research Portal (University of Southern Denmark) (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion)
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
apical prolapse, vaginal hysterectomy, sacrospinous hysteropexy, prolapse recurrence, reoperation, uterus-preserving surgery
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Vaginal, Middle Aged, Recurrence, Reoperation, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Uterine Prolapse, Vagina

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