Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 25, 2026
Laparoscopic Non-Mesh Cerclage Pectopexy with Uterine Preservation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Published on: October 25, 2024
Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ?
Lauri J Romanzi1, Renuka Tyagi
1Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Weill Cornell Medical College, 133 East 58th Street, New York, NY 10022, USA. ljromanzi@gmail.com
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.
