Reply to Letter to the Editor Re: Hysterectomy Versus Uterine Preservation at the Time of Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery

      We very much appreciate Dr. Stairs and Dr. Clancy's interest and letter regarding our recent article, “Hysterectomy Versus Uterine Preservation at the Time of Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery.” We had hoped to spark discussions surrounding the practices of uterine preservation during prolapse repair and appreciate many of the points that Dr. Stairs and Dr. Clancy raised.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Wang R.
        • Cohen S.
        • Abalyan V.
        • et al.
        Evaluating surgical approaches to uterine suspension: a retrospective cohort study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 226: S1319-S1320
        • Schulten S.F.M.
        • Detollenaere R.J.
        • Stekelenburg J.
        • et al.
        Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.
        BMJ. 2019; 366: l5149

      Linked Article