Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Uterine transposition for fertility and ovarian function preservation after radiotherapy
  1. Reitan Ribeiro1,
  2. Glauco Baiocchi2,
  3. Renato Moretti-Marques3,
  4. José Clemente Linhares1,
  5. Caroline Nadai Costa4 and
  6. Rene Pareja5
  1. 1Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Erasto Gaertner Hospital, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil
  2. 2Department of Gynecologic Oncology, ACCamargo Cancer Center, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  3. 3Department of Oncology, Albert Einstein Israelite Hospital, Sao Paulo, Brazil
  4. 4Department of Oncology, Parana Institute of Oncology, Curitiba, Brazil
  5. 5Department of Gynecology Oncology, Clinica ASTORGA, Medellin, and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia, Medellin, Colombia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Reitan Ribeiro, Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Erasto Gaertner Hospital, Curitiba, Brazil; reitanribeiro{at}


Objective To evaluate the feasibility of uterine transposition as a method of preserving fertility and ovarian function after pelvic radiation.

Methods This prospective multicenter observational study included patients with non-gynecologic pelvic cancers who underwent pelvic radiation as part of their cancer treatment between June 2017 and June 2019. For inclusion in the study, patients were required to have normal menstrual cycles and hormone levels (follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and estrogen) before treatment. Uterine transposition to the upper abdomen was performed prior to irradiation. Clinical examinations and Doppler ultrasonography were used to evaluate the gonadal vasculature post-surgery. The uterus was repositioned into the pelvis 2–4 weeks after radiation therapy or at the time of rectosigmoid resection in patients with rectal cancer who had undergone neoadjuvant treatment. Cancer treatment and follow-up were performed according to standard guidelines.

Results Eight patients (seven with rectal cancer and one with pelvic liposarcoma) underwent uterine transposition at a median age of 30.5 years (range 19–37). The uterus was successfully preserved in six patients, accompanied by normal menses, hormonal levels, and vaginal intercourse after treatment. One patient with rectal cancer died of carcinomatosis 4 months after uterine transposition. One patient presented with uterine necrosis 4 days after uterine transposition, and the uterus was removed; however, one ovary was preserved. Cervical ischemia was the most common post-surgical complication in three (37.5%) patients. Three patients attempted to conceive, and two (66%) were spontaneously successful and delivered healthy babies at 36 and 38 weeks by cesarean section without complications.

Conclusions Uterine transposition is a feasible procedure for preserving gonadal and uterine function in patients requiring pelvic radiotherapy for non-gynecological cancer, with the potential for achieving spontaneous pregnancy and successful delivery.

  • Colorectal Neoplasms
  • Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
  • Postoperative complications
  • Radiation
  • Adnexal Diseases

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Twitter @glaucobaiocchi, @RParejaGineOnco

  • Contributors RR and JCL contributed to study planning, conceptualization, surgical data collection, data analysis, writing the original draft of manuscript, and reviewing and editing the manuscript. GB, RM-M, and RP contributed to surgical data collection, data analysis, writing the original draft of manuscript, and reviewing the manuscript. CNC contributed to study conceptualization, oncology data collection, data analysis, writing the original draft of manuscript, and reviewing the manuscript. All authors had access to the data reported in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. RR is responsible for the overall content as the guarantor.

  • Funding The study was founded by the Erasto Gaertner Hospital.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles