Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation vs Uterosacral Ligaments Suspension for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) and uterosacral ligaments suspension (ULS) for surgical correction of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).Methods Comparative studies were identified in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, Medicine and clinicaltrials.gov databases. Randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies were included. Primary outcomes were collected including anatomical success rate (Defined as anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen), surgical success rate, recurrence and total complication rate, while secondary outcomes were specific complications rates. Data were analyzed using Revman (Version 5.4).Results After searching databases and removing the duplicate studies, a total of 57 articles had entered the screening stage. Finally, 9 moderate and high quality studies (4 randomized controlled trials and 5 retrospective studies) with 4516 participants were included. For primary outcomes, there was no statistical difference between the 2 groups regarding surgical success rate (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.91-1.01; I 2 = 0%; P =.98), anatomical success (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.78-1.05; I 2 = 61%; P =.19), recurrence rate (RR = 1.26; 95% CI: 0.85-1.87; I 2 = 75%; P =.24) and total complication rate (RR = 1.07; 95% CI: 0.89-1.28; I 2 = 33%; P =.47). Subgroup analysis regarding different follow-up times (1,2 and 5 years) and stages (Stage 2 and stage 3-4) found similar results in primary outcomes.Conclusion In conclusion, SSLF and ULS have the same efficacy and safety for patients. However, SSLF seems to have lower complication rates of vaginal granulation tissue and urethral injury and is gradually favored by surgeons because of its short operation time and simple operation. We still need more high-quality research, especially in terms of the incidence of complications.