Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study).

BACKGROUND: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to 40% of parous women which adversely affects the quality of life. During a life time, 20% of all women will undergo an operation. In general the guidelines advise a vaginal operation in case of uterine descent: hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament plication (VH), sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) or a modified Manchester operation (MM). In the last decade, renewed interest in uterus sparing techniques has been observed. Previous studies have shown non-inferiority between SSH and VH. Whether or not SSH and MM are comparable concerning anatomical and functional outcome is still unknown. The practical application of both operations is at least in The Netherlands a known cause of practice pattern variation (PPV). To reveal any difference between both techniques the SAM-study was designed. METHODS: The SAM-study is a randomized controlled multicentre non-inferiority study which compares SSH and MM. Women with symptomatic POP in any stage, uterine descent and POP-Quantification (POP-Q) point D at ≤ minus 1 cm are eligible. The primary outcome is the composite outcome at two years of absence of prolapse beyond the hymen in any compartment, the absence of bulge symptoms and absence of reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse. Secondary outcomes are hospital parameters, surgery related morbidity/complications, pain perception, further treatments for prolapse or urinary incontinence, POP-Q anatomy in all compartments, quality-of-life, sexual function, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up takes place at 6 weeks, 12 and 24 months. Additionally at 12 weeks, 6 and 9 months cost-effectiveness will be assessed. Validated questionnaires will be used and gynaecological examination will be performed. Analysis will be performed following the intention-to-treat and per protocol principle. With a non-inferiority margin of 9% and an expected loss to follow-up of 10%, 424 women will be needed to prove non-inferiority with a confidence interval of 95%. DISCUSSION: This study will evaluate the effectiveness and costs of SSH versus MM in women with primary POP. The evidence will show whether the existing PPV is detrimental and a de-implementation process regarding one of the operations is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register (NTR 6978, http://www.trialregister.nl ). Date of registration: 29 January 2018. Prospectively registered.

Dutch women's attitudes towards hysterectomy and uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate Dutch women's attitudes and preferences towards hysterectomy or uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: Women's attitude was assessed by a structured questionnaire in one university hospital and one non-university teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Between December 2013 and November 2014, 102 women referred with prolapse complaints, without previous prolapse surgery, responded to the questionnaire received by mail prior to gynaecological consultation. Main outcome was the preference for uterus preserving surgery versus hysterectomy. Furthermore we studied the impact of uterus preservation and hysterectomy on body image and sexual function and the importance of treatment success, risk of urinary incontinence after surgery, complication risk, recovery time, length of hospital stay, costs and the risk of developing endometrial cancer. RESULTS: Assuming that functional and anatomical outcomes after hysterectomy and uterus preserving surgery were equal, more women expressed preference for uterus preservation (43%, 44 out of 102 women) compared to hysterectomy (27%, 27 out of 102 women). The majority of women expected a similar improvement in sexuality and body image after the two treatment modalities. Treatment success, risk for urinary incontinence after surgery and complication risk were the most important factors. Taken the future risk of endometrial cancer into account, 18% of the women preferred hysterectomy because of this risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that women referred with prolapse complaints have a preference for uterus preservation in case outcomes after both interventions are expected to be equal. The majority of women expected that body image and sexual function would equally improve after both interventions.

Diagnostic accuracy of endometrial thickness to exclude polyps in women with postmenopausal bleeding.

PURPOSE: To determine the accuracy of endometrial thickness measurement with transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) to diagnose endometrial polyps in women with postmenopausal bleeding in whom a carcinoma has been ruled out. METHODS: In women with postmenopausal bleeding, endometrial thickness was measured with TVUS. If endometrial thickness was >4 mm, office hysteroscopy was performed. At hysteroscopy, the uterine cavity was assessed for the presence of polyps. Patients with malignancy were excluded. We used receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis to assess the capacity of TVUS endometrial thickness measurement to diagnose endometrial polyps. Findings at hysteroscopy were considered to be the reference standard. RESULTS: We included 178 patients with postmenopausal bleeding and endometrial thickness >4 mm. Hysteroscopy showed an endometrial polyp in 90 patients (50%). The ROC analysis revealed that endometrial thickness had an area under the curve of 0.64 in the diagnosis of endometrial polyps. CONCLUSION: In women with postmenopausal bleeding in whom carcinoma has been ruled out, measurement of endometrial thickness with TVUS is not useful in the diagnosis of endometrial polyps.