Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 17, 2025
Author Spotlight: Advancing Pelvic Prolapse Treatment with a Non-Mesh Approach using Laparoscopic Pectopexy
Published on: October 25, 2024
Hysterectomy Versus Hysteropexy at the Time of Native Tissue Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair: A Cost-Effectiveness
Olivia H Chang1, Jonathan P Shepherd2, Beri M Ridgeway1
1From the Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Objective:
The aim of the study was to determine whether a hysterectomy at the time of native tissue pelvic organ prolapse repair is cost-effective for the prevention of endometrial cancer.
Methods:
We created a decision analysis model using TreeAge Pro. We modeled prolapse recurrence after total vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (TVH-USLS) versus sacrospinous ligament fixation hysteropexy (SSLF-HPXY). We modeled incidence and diagnostic evaluation of postmenopausal bleeding, including risk of endometrial pathology and diagnosis or death from endometrial cancer. Modeled costs included those associated with the index procedure, subsequent prolapse repair, endometrial biopsy, pelvic ultrasound, hysteroscopy, dilation and curettage, and treatment of endometrial cancer.
Results:
TVH-USLS costs US $587.61 more than SSLF-HPXY per case of prolapse. TVH-USLS prevents 1.1% of women from experiencing postmenopausal bleeding and its diagnostic workup. It prevents 0.95% of women from undergoing subsequent major surgery for the treatment of either prolapse recurrence or suspected endometrial cancer. Using our model, it costs US $2,698,677 to prevent one cancer death by performing TVH-USLS. As this is lower than the value of a statistical life, it is cost-effective to perform TVH-USLS for cancer prevention. Multiple 1-way sensitivity analyses showed that changes to input variables would not significantly change outcomes.
Conclusions:
TVH-USLS increased costs but reduced postmenopausal bleeding and subsequent major surgery compared with SSLF-HPXY. Accounting for these differences, TVH-USLS was a cost-effective approach for the prevention of endometrial cancer. Uterine preservation/removal at the time of prolapse repair should be based on the woman's history and treatment priorities, but cancer prevention should be one aspect of this decision.
