Cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy: a population-based register study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Surgical management of uterine prolapse varies greatly and recently uterus-preserving techniques have been gaining popularity. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy, with or without concomitant anterior colporrhaphy, in women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse.

METHOD: We carried out a population-based longitudinal cohort study with data from the Swedish National Quality Register for Gynecological Surgery. Between 2006 and 2013, a total of 3,174 patients with uterine prolapse were identified, who had undergone primary surgery with either cervical amputation or vaginal hysterectomy, with or without concomitant anterior colporrhaphy. Pre- and postoperative prolapse-related symptoms and patient satisfaction were assessed, in addition to complications and adverse events. Between-group comparisons were performed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in neither symptom relief nor patient satisfaction. In both groups a total of 81 % of the women reported the absence of vaginal bulging 1 year after surgery and a total of 89 % were satisfied with the result of the operation. The vaginal hysterectomy group had a higher rate of severe complications than the cervical amputation group, 1.9 % vs 0.2 % (p < 0.001). The vaginal hysterectomy group also had a longer duration of surgery and greater perioperative blood loss, in addition to longer hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS: Cervical amputation seems to perform equally well in comparison to vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse, but with less morbidity and a lower rate of severe complications.