Hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension or UpholdTM hysteropexy in women with apical prolapse: a parallel cohort study
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis The aim was to compare objective and subjective cure rates between Uphold™ hysteropexy (HP) and vaginal hysterectomy (VH) with uterosacral suspension. Methods A sample size of 49 in each arm would be required to detect a clinical difference of 20% between the groups. Owing to delayed recruitment, this originally planned randomised controlled trial was changed to a patient preference study after randomising initial 6 participants. Women with symptomatic stage ≥2 uterine descent wishing a surgical solution were included. Routine follow-up was scheduled at 6 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and annually thereafter. Primary outcome was absence of stage ≥2 apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included a composite cure of no leading edge beyond the hymen, absence of bulge symptoms and no retreatment; patient-reported outcomes were based on quality-of-life questionnaires (PFDI-20, PFIQ-7, PISQ-12, PGI-I, EQ5D and a health score). Results We recruited 50 patients undergoing VH between 2011 and 2013 and 51 patients undergoing HP between 2011 and 2016. Participants were followed up for a median of 25 months (23-96). Five women from the VH (10%) and 7 from the HP (14%) group were lost to follow-up. Combined anatomical and symptomatic outcomes were available for 41 (82%) VH and 39 (76%) in the HP group. There was no difference in objective apical outcomes; the incidence of stage 2 prolapse was 0% in the VH group and 2% in HP group (p = 0.50). We found no difference in the composite cure rate (78% VH vs 85% HP, 0.45) between the groups. There was no significant difference in surgical complications (p = 0.33), assessed using Clavien-Dindo classification. There was a 2% surgery rate for mesh exposure in the HP group. Conclusions Uphold™ uterine suspension and VH appear to have similar objective and subjective cure at 25 months, with no significant difference in surgical complications.
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?
Randomized controlled trials for this topic have ethical quandaries and external validity issues because participants must relinquish autonomy of a reproductive organ to randomization, which limits their utility and appropriateness.
“Though randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exist, 19,25 ethical quandaries and external validity issues given that participants must relinquish autonomy of a reproductive organ to randomization places limits on utility and appropriateness of RCT evidence for this topic.31,32”
From Hysterectomy versus uterine preservation for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a prospective cohort study (2025) · cites this paper as [32]
Cites
Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L)
Herdman, M., Gudex, C., Lloyd, A., Janssen, M., Kind, P., Parkin, D., Bonsel, G., & Badia, X. (2011) · Quality of Life Research · doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x · Cited by 9,795 · see citing works
Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse
Korbly, N. B., Kassis, N. C., Good, M. M., Richardson, M. L., Book, N. M., Yip, S., Saguan, D., Gross, C., Evans, J., Lopes, V. V., et al. (2013) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.003 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Attitudes Toward Hysterectomy in Women Undergoing Evaluation for Uterovaginal Prolapse
Frick, A. C., Barber, M. D., Paraiso, M. F. R., Ridgeway, B., Jelovsek, J. E., & Walters, M. D. (2013) · Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery · doi:10.1097/spv.0b013e31827d8667 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
Nager, C. W., Visco, A. G., Richter, H. E., Rardin, C. R., Rogers, R. G., Harvie, H. S., Zyczynski, H. M., Paraiso, M. F. R., Mazloomdoost, D., Grey, S., et al. (2019) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2019.12812 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Toozs‐Hobson, P., Freeman, R., Barber, M., Maher, C., Haylen, B., Athanasiou, S., Swift, S., Whitmore, K., Ghoniem, G., & de Ridder, D. (2012) · Neurourology and Urodynamics · doi:10.1002/nau.22238 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Azadi, A., Marchand, G., Masoud, A. T., Sainz, K., Govindan, M., Ware, K., King, A., Ruther, S., Brazil, G., Calteux, N., et al. (2021) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.10.020 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Brennand, E. A., Scime, N. V., Huang, B., Edwards, A. D., Kim-Fine, S., Hall, J., Birch, C., Robert, M., & Carter Ramirez, A. (2025) · American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology · doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2024.10.021 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kulkarni, M., Young, N., Lee, J., & Rosamilia, A.
- Affiliations
- Monash Health (AU)
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Kulkarni, Mugdha
- Venue
- International Urogynecology Journal
- Published
- 2020-05-28
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2137-2146
- ISSN
- 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-3023
- OpenAlex
- W3029385280
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 1.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- vaginal hysterectomy, cure rate, patient-reported outcomes, quality of life, surgical complications, mesh exposure, patient preferences
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Hysterectomy, Vaginal, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Uterine Prolapse, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
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