Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester

Abstract

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis The modified Manchester (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) are the most common uterus-preserving surgical procedures for uterine descent. Little is known about gynecologists’ preferences regarding the two interventions. The study’s aim was to identify which factors influence Dutch (uro)gynecologists when choosing one of these techniques. Methods This qualitative study consists of ten semi-structured interviews with Dutch (uro)gynecologists using predetermined, open explorative questions, based on a structured topic list. An inductive content analysis was performed using Atlas.ti. Results For SSH, the majority (6/10 gynecologists) reported the more dorsal change of direction of the vaginal axis as a disadvantage and expected more cystocele recurrences (7/10). The most reported disadvantage of MM was the risk of cervical stenosis (7/10). Four gynecologists found MM not to be appropriate for patients with higher stage uterine prolapse. The quality of the uterosacral ligaments was related to the chance of recurrence according to five gynecologists. Patient counseling was biased toward one of the uterus-preserving operations (7/10). Four gynecologists stated they make the final decision while two let patient-preference lead the final decision. Conclusions Preference for one of the uterus-preserving interventions is mainly based on the gynecologist’s own experience and background. The lack of information regarding these two uterus-preserving procedures hampers evidence-based decision making, which explains the practice pattern variation. In conclusion, further research is needed to improve evidence-based counseling and shared decision making regarding the choice of procedure.