The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse

T2 - a review

AU - Tolstrup, Cæcilie Krogsgaard

AU - Lose, Gunnar

AU - Klarskov, Niels

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uterine prolapse is a common health problem and the number of surgical procedures is increasing. No consensus regarding the surgical strategy for repair of uterine prolapse exists. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) is the preferred surgical procedure worldwide, but uterus-preserving alternatives including the Manchester procedure (MP) are available. The objective was to evaluate if VH and the MP are equally efficient treatments for uterine prolapse with regard to anatomical and symptomatic outcome, quality of life score, functional outcome, re-operation and conservative re-intervention rate, complications and operative outcomes.METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrials and Clinical trials register using the MeSh terms "uterine prolapse", "uterus prolapse", "vaginal prolapse" "pelvic organ prolapse", "prolapsed uterus", "Manchester procedure" and "vaginal hysterectomy". No limitations regarding language, study design or methodology were applied. In total, nine studies published from 1966 to 2014 comparing the MP to VH were included.RESULTS: The anatomical recurrence rate for the middle compartment was 4-7 % after VH, whereas recurrence was very rare after the MP. The re-operation rate because of symptomatic recurrence was higher after VH (9-13.1 %) compared with MP (3.3-9.5 %) and more patients needed conservative re-intervention (14-15 %) than after MP (10-11 %). After VH, postoperative bleeding and blood loss tended to be greater, bladder lesions and infections more frequent and the operating time longer.CONCLUSIONS: This review is in favour of the MP, which seems to be an efficient and safe treatment for uterine prolapse. We suggest that the MP might be considered a durable alternative to VH in uterine prolapse repair.

AB - INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Uterine prolapse is a common health problem and the number of surgical procedures is increasing. No consensus regarding the surgical strategy for repair of uterine prolapse exists. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) is the preferred surgical procedure worldwide, but uterus-preserving alternatives including the Manchester procedure (MP) are available. The objective was to evaluate if VH and the MP are equally efficient treatments for uterine prolapse with regard to anatomical and symptomatic outcome, quality of life score, functional outcome, re-operation and conservative re-intervention rate, complications and operative outcomes.METHODS: We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane databases, Clinicaltrials and Clinical trials register using the MeSh terms "uterine prolapse", "uterus prolapse", "vaginal prolapse" "pelvic organ prolapse", "prolapsed uterus", "Manchester procedure" and "vaginal hysterectomy". No limitations regarding language, study design or methodology were applied. In total, nine studies published from 1966 to 2014 comparing the MP to VH were included.RESULTS: The anatomical recurrence rate for the middle compartment was 4-7 % after VH, whereas recurrence was very rare after the MP. The re-operation rate because of symptomatic recurrence was higher after VH (9-13.1 %) compared with MP (3.3-9.5 %) and more patients needed conservative re-intervention (14-15 %) than after MP (10-11 %). After VH, postoperative bleeding and blood loss tended to be greater, bladder lesions and infections more frequent and the operating time longer.CONCLUSIONS: This review is in favour of the MP, which seems to be an efficient and safe treatment for uterine prolapse. We suggest that the MP might be considered a durable alternative to VH in uterine prolapse repair.

KW - Adult

KW - Aged

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Hysterectomy, Vaginal/methods

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Organ Sparing Treatments/methods

KW - Recurrence

KW - Reoperation/statistics & numerical data

KW - Treatment Outcome

KW - Uterine Prolapse/pathology

KW - Uterus/surgery

U2 - 10.1007/s00192-016-3100-y

DO - 10.1007/s00192-016-3100-y

M3 - Review

C2 - 27485234

SN - 0937-3462

VL - 28

SP - 33

EP - 40

JO - International Urogynecology Journal

JF - International Urogynecology Journal

IS - 1

ER -