Laparoscopic versus Vaginal Uterosacral Ligament Suspension in women with pelvic organ prolapse. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature.

Laparoscopic surgery complications native tissue repair pelvic organ prolapse uterosacral ligament suspension vaginal surgery

Journal

Journal of minimally invasive gynecology
ISSN: 1553-4669
Titre abrégé: J Minim Invasive Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101235322

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 07 09 2023
revised: 24 02 2024
accepted: 13 03 2024
medline: 18 3 2024
pubmed: 18 3 2024
entrez: 17 3 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

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 uterosacral ligament suspension (L-USLS) and vaginal uterosacral ligament suspension (V-USLS), highlighting that current evidence remains inconclusive regarding the superiority of either surgical access route. 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. 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. 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 Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and ranged between moderate to serious. The pooled results suggest that L-USLS was associated with a potentially decreased incidence of ureteral compromise (OR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89; p = .04) and seemingly lower objective (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.97; p = .04) and subjective recurrence rates (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.23 to 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 two groups. 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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38493827
pii: S1553-4650(24)00112-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jmig.2024.03.007
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Auteurs

Athanasios Douligeris (A)

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

Nikolaos Kathopoulis (N)

Endoscopic Surgery Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Alexandra" Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Vasilissis Sofias Avenue 80, 11528 Athens, Greece.

Eleftherios Zachariou (E)

Endoscopic Surgery Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Alexandra" Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Vasilissis Sofias Avenue 80, 11528 Athens, Greece.

Anastasia Mortaki (A)

Endoscopic Surgery Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Alexandra" Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Vasilissis Sofias Avenue 80, 11528 Athens, Greece.

Dimitrios Zacharakis (D)

Endoscopic Surgery Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Alexandra" Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Vasilissis Sofias Avenue 80, 11528 Athens, Greece.

Konstantinos Kypriotis (K)

Endoscopic Surgery Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Alexandra" Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Vasilissis Sofias Avenue 80, 11528 Athens, Greece.

Ioannis Chatzipapas (I)

Endoscopic Surgery Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Alexandra" Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Vasilissis Sofias Avenue 80, 11528 Athens, Greece.

Athanasios Protopapas (A)

Endoscopic Surgery Unit, 1st Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, "Alexandra" Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Vasilissis Sofias Avenue 80, 11528 Athens, Greece.

Classifications MeSH