Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The outcome of Manchester–Fotergill operation for uterine decensus repair: a single center experience

  • General Gynecology
  • Published:
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics, peri- and post-operative outcomes, and clinical effectiveness of the Manchester–Fothergill (MF) procedure for uterine descensus as a uterine-sparing surgery.

Methods

In this study, 49 patients underwent the MF procedure as a uterine-sparing surgery for uterine descensus during 2008–2012 in the Department of Urogynecology at Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Research and Teaching Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Results

Medical records and follow-up data were collected from 24 of the 49 patients (48.9 %). The mean age was 49.3 ± 9.1 years, and parity 3.6 ± 1.5; 41.6 % were post-menopausal; 6 patients (25 %) had grade II, and 18 (75 %) had grade III uterine prolapse; 95.8 % had associated cystoceles, and 79.1 % had associated rectoceles; 66.6 % complained of urinary incontinence. On follow-up examination, the cervical stumps were satisfactorily situated in 23 of 24 patients, and recurrent prolapse was seen in 1 patient (4.1 %). Bladder perforation was repaired at the time of the operation in 1 patient, and one complained of post-operative urinary retention.

Conclusion

The MF procedure is a viable option to surgically correct uterine descent while preserving the uterus to treat recurrent prolapse with a low complication rate and low morbidity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. DeLancey J, Richardson A (1992) Anatomy of genital support. In: Benson J (ed) Female pelvic floor disorders. Norton Medical Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Samuelsson EC, Victor FT, Tibblin G, Svardsudd KF (1999) Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:299–305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. van Brummen HJ, van de Pol G, Aalders CI, Heintz AP, van der Vaart CH (2003) Sacrospinous hysteropexy compared to vaginal hysterectomy as primary surgical treatment for a descensus uteri: effects on urinary symptoms. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 14:350–355

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ayhan A, Esin S, Guven S, Salman C, Ozyuncu O (2006) The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 92:228–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Diwan A, Rardin CR, Kohli N (2004) Uterine preservation during surgery for uterovaginal prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15:286–292

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the Standardisation Sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 21:167–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Costantini E, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A, Mearini E, Porena M (2005) Uterus preservation in surgical correction of urogenital prolapse. Eur Urol 48(4):642–649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Altman D, Granath F, Cnattingius S, Falconer C (2007) Hysterectomy and risk of stress-urinary-incontinence surgery: nationwide cohort study. Lancet 370:1494–1499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tipton RH, Atkin PF (1970) Uterine disease after the Manchester repair operation. J Obstet Gyneacol Br Commonw 77:852–853

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hopkins MP, Devine JB, De Lancey JO (1997) Uterine problems discovered after presumed hysterectomy: the Manchester operation revisited. Obstet Gynecol 89:846–848

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zucchi A, Lazzeri M, Porena M, Mearini L, Costantini E (2010) Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol 7:626–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Conger GT, Keettel WC (1958) The Manchester–Fothergill operation, its place in gynecology: a review of 960 cases at University Hospitals. Iowa City, Iowa

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thomas AG, Brodman ML, Dottino PR, Bodian C, Friedman F, Bogursky E (1995) Manchester procedure vs. vaginal hysterectomy for uterine prolapse: a comparison. J Reprod Med 40:299–304

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thys SD, Coolen AL, Martens IR et al (2011) A comparison of long-term outcome between Manchester Fothergill and vaginal hysterectomy as treatment for uterine descent. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 22(9):1171–1178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Basic E, Kozaric H, Kozaric M, Suko A (2010) Conization as treatment of choice for precancerous changes and university cervical cancer at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of Clinical Center of Sarajevo University in 2009. J Med Arh. 64(3):171–174

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Yüzüncü yıl Üniversity Hospital, Van, Turkey

    İsmet alkış

  2. Department of Gynecology and Obstetric, Erciş State Hospital, Tekevler sok toki evleri k7-3 daire:14 erciş, Van, Turkey

    Erbil Karaman

  3. Department of Urogynecology, Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Research and Teaching Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey

    Ağahan Han, Bekir Gülaç & Hasan Cemal Ark

Authors
  1. İsmet alkış
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erbil Karaman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ağahan Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bekir Gülaç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hasan Cemal Ark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erbil Karaman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

alkış, İ., Karaman, E., Han, A. et al. The outcome of Manchester–Fotergill operation for uterine decensus repair: a single center experience. Arch Gynecol Obstet 290, 309–314 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3200-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3200-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation