Laparoscopic versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature

Athanasios Douligeris; Nikolaos Kathopoulis; Eleftherios Zachariou; Anastasia Mortaki; Dimitrios Zacharakis; Konstantinos Kypriotis; Ioannis Chatzipapas; Athanasios Protopapas

doi:10.1016/j.jmig.2024.03.007

Laparoscopic versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Literature

J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2024 Mar 16:S1553-4650(24)00112-2. doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.03.007. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Athanasios Douligeris¹, Nikolaos Kathopoulis², Eleftherios Zachariou², Anastasia Mortaki², Dimitrios Zacharakis², Konstantinos Kypriotis², Ioannis Chatzipapas², Athanasios Protopapas²

Affiliations

¹ Endoscopic Surgery Unit, 1(st) Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Alexandra" General Hospital, Vasilissis Sofias Avenue 80, 11528, Athens, Greece. (all authors).. Electronic address: thanosdouligeris92@gmail.com.
² Endoscopic Surgery Unit, 1(st) Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Alexandra" General Hospital, Vasilissis Sofias Avenue 80, 11528, Athens, Greece. (all authors).

PMID: 38493827
DOI: 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.03.007

Abstract

Objective: Uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) is one of the most frequently used operations for the restoration of apical support in women with uterovaginal prolapse. However, existing studies are inconclusive as to whether and which surgical access route is superior. The aim of the present meta-analysis is tentatively to compare the efficiency and the postoperative complications of laparoscopic USLS (L-USLS) and vaginal USLS (V-USLS), highlighting that current evidence remains inconclusive regarding the superiority of either surgical access route.

Data sources: We performed a systematic literature review of 5 major databases (Medline, Scopus, Google Scholar Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Clinicaltrials.gov) from inception till April 2023.

Methods of study selection: No language restrictions were applied. All comparative studies that compared L-USLS and V-USLS for the management of women with uterovaginal prolapse were included.

Tabulation, integration, and results: Data from 6 retrospective cohort studies on 856 patients were extracted and analyzed. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions tool and ranged between moderate to serious. The pooled results suggest that L-USLS was associated with a potentially decreased incidence of ureteral compromise (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.89; p = .04) and seemingly lower objective (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23-0.97; p = .04) and subjective recurrence rates (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23-0.92; p = .03). There were no significant differences between the rates of postoperative pain from USLS sutures, postoperative pelvic hematomas, the suture exposure/granulation tissue formation, and the prolapse recurrence retreatment among the 2 groups.

Conclusion: The present meta-analysis indicates that L-USLS is possibly associated with significantly fewer ureteral compromise rates and decreased subjective and objective recurrences rates compared to V-USLS. Nevertheless, given the limitations in data quality and heterogeneity of the included studies, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Large-scale randomized studies are essential to more definitively determine the relative merits of the laparoscopic versus vaginal approach.

Keywords: Laparoscopic surgery; Native-tissue repair; Pelvic organ prolapse; Uterosacral ligament suspension; Vaginal surgery.

Publication types

Review