Comparison of the effectiveness of sacrospinous ligament fixation and sacrocolpopexy: a meta-analysis

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal Vol. 33; no. 1; pp. 3 - 13
• Main Authors: Zhang, Wenju, Cheon, Willy Cecilia, Zhang, Li, Wang, Xiaozhong, Wei, Yuzhen, Lyu, Chaoxia
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.01.2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Abdomen; Clinical trials; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - adverse effects; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods; Gynecology; Humans; Ligaments; Ligaments - surgery; Medical Subject Headings-MeSH; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Meta-analysis; Obstetrics; Patients; Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Review; Review Article; Surgical mesh; Surgical outcomes; Treatment Outcome; Urology; Vagina; Sacrospinous ligament fixation; Sacrocolpopexy; Meta-analysis
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04823-w

Introduction and hypothesis Sacrocolpopexy and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) have been used for the restoration of apical support. Studies comparing sacrocolpopexy and SSLF have reported conflicting results. We aim to assess the current evidence regarding efficiency and the complications of sacrocolpopexy compared with SSLF. Methods We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library and performed a systematic review meta-analysis to assess the two surgical approaches. Results 5Five randomized controlled trials, 8 retrospective studies, and 2 prospective studies including 4,120 cases were identified. Compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), SSLF was associated with a lower success rate (88.32% and 91.45%; OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.29–0.95; p  = 0.03), higher recurrence (11.58% and 8.32%; OR 1.97; 95% CI 1.04–3.46; p  = 0.04), and dyspareunia rate (14.36% and 4.67%; OR 3.10; 95% CI 1.28–7.50; p  = 0.01). Patients in this group may benefit from shorter operative time (weighted mean difference −25.08 min; 95% CI −42.29 to −7.88; p  = 0.004), lower hemorrhage rate (0.85% and 2.58%; OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25–0.85; p  = 0.009), wound infection rate (3.30% and 5.76%; OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.39–0.77; p  = 0.0005), and fewer gastrointestinal complications (1.33% and 6.19%; OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.15–0.76; p  = 0.009). Conclusion Both sacrocolpopexy and SSLF offer an efficient alternative to the restoration of apical support. When anatomical durability and sexual function is a priority, ASC may be the preferred option. When considering factors of mesh erosion, operative time, gastrointestinal complications, hemorrhage, and wound infections, SSLF may be the better option.