Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND:Previous reviews on hysterectomy versus uterine-sparing surgery in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair did not consider that the open abdominal approach or transvaginal mesh use have been largely abandoned. OBJECTIVES:To provide up-to-date evidence by examining only studies investigating techniques currently in use for POP repair. SEARCH STRATEGY:MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from inception to January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included randomized and non-randomized studies comparing surgical procedures for POP with or without concomitant hysterectomy. Studies describing open abdominal approaches or transvaginal mesh implantation were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:A random effect meta-analysis was conducted on extracted data reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS:Thirty-eight studies were included. Hysterectomy and uterine-sparing procedures did not differ in reoperation rate (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.74-1.17), intraoperative major (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.79-2.26) and minor (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.79-2.4) complications, postoperative major (OR 1.42; 95% CI 0.85-2.37) and minor (OR 1.18; 95% CI 0.9-1.53) complications, and objective (OR 1.38; 95% CI 0.92-2.07) or subjective (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.8-1.88) success. Uterine preservation was associated with a shorter operative time (-22.7 min; 95% CI -16.92 to -28.51 min), shorter hospital stay (-0.35 days, 95% CI -0.04 to -0.65 days), and less blood loss (-61.7 mL; 95% CI -31.3 to -92.1 mL). When only studies using a laparoscopic approach for both arms were considered, no differences were observed in investigated outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:No major differences were observed in POP outcomes between procedures with and without concomitant hysterectomy. The decision to preserve or remove the uterus should be tailored on individual factors.