Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy and apical suspension: 7-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

Introduction and hypothesis Laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy offers a uterine-sparing alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension, although randomised comparative data are lacking. This study was aimed at comparing the long-term efficacy of laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Methods A randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension for the treatment of uterine prolapse was performed, with a minimum follow-up of 7 years. The primary outcome was reoperation for apical prolapse. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported mesh complications, Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification, Patient Global Impression of Improvement in prolapse symptoms and the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire Vaginal Symptoms, Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (ICIQ-FLUTS) and PISQ-12 questionnaires. Results A total of 101 women were randomised and 62 women attended for follow-up at a mean of 100 months postoperatively (range 84–119 months). None reported a mesh-associated complication. The risk of reoperation for apical prolapse was 17.2% following vaginal hysterectomy (VH) and 6.1% following laparoscopic mesh sacrohysteropexy (LSH; relative risk 0.34, 95% CI 0.07–1.68, p = 0.17). Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy was associated with a statistically significantly higher apical suspension (POP-Q point C −5 vs −4.25, p = 0.02) and longer total vaginal length (9 cm vs 6 cm, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the change in ICIQ-VS scores between the two groups (ICIQ-VS change −22 vs −25, p = 0.59). Conclusion Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with apical suspension have comparable reoperation rates and subjective outcomes. Potential advantages of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy include a lower risk of apical reoperation, greater apical support and increased total vaginal length.

Comparison of treatment outcomes for native tissue repair and sacrocolpopexy as apical suspension procedures at the time of hysterectomy for uterine prolapse

Concomitant apical suspension should be performed at the time of hysterectomy for uterine prolapse to reduce the risk of recurrent prolapse. Native tissue repair (NTR) and sacrocolpopexy (SCP) are commonly used apical suspension procedures; however, it remains unclear which one is preferred. This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes of NTR and SCP in terms of surgical failure, complication and reoperation rates. Surgical failure was defined as the presence of vaginal bulge symptoms, any prolapse beyond the hymen, or retreatment for prolapse. This retrospective cohort study included 523 patients who had undergone NTR (n = 272) or SCP (n = 251) along with hysterectomy for uterine prolapse and who had at least 4-month follow-up visits. During the median 3-year follow-up period, the surgical failure rate was higher in the NTR group (21.3% vs 6.4%, P < 0.01), with a low rate of retreatment in both groups. Overall complication rates were similar, but complications requiring surgical correction under anesthesia were more common in the SCP group (7.2% vs 0.4%, P < 0.01). As a result, the total reoperation rate was significantly higher in the SCP group (8.0% vs 2.6%, P = 0.02). Taken together, NTR may be a preferred option for apical suspension when hysterectomy is performed for uterine prolapse.