Abdominal and vaginal pelvic support with concomitant hysterectomy for uterovaginal pelvic prolapse: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

While approximately 225,000 pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgeries are performed annually in the US, there is no consensus on the optimal route for pelvic support for the initial treatment of uterovaginal prolapse (UVP). Our objective is to compare the outcomes of abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC) to vaginal pelvic support (VPS) with either uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) or sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSF) in combination with hysterectomy for treating apical prolapse. A systematic search was performed through March 2021. Studies comparing ASC with VPS for treatment of UVP were included in the review. The primary outcome was the rate of overall anatomic prolapse failure per studies' definition. Secondary outcomes included evaluating isolated recurrent vaginal wall prolapse, postoperative POP-Q points, total vaginal length (TVL), and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) scores. Random effect analyses were generated utilizing R 4.0.2. Out of 4225 total studies, 4 met our inclusion criteria, including 226 patients in the ASC group and 199 patients in the VPS group. ASC was not found to be associated with a higher rate of vaginal wall prolapse recurrence (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.2-2.4; P= 0.33). There was no significant difference between groups for anterior or apical vaginal wall prolapse recurrence (P= 0.58 and P= 0.97, respectively). ASC was associated with significantly longer TVL (mean difference [MD]: 1.01; 95% CI = 0.33-1.70; P= 0.02) and better POP-Q Ba scores [MD = -0.23; 95% CI = -0.37; -0.10; P= 0.01]. ASC and vaginal pelvic support (either USLS or SSF) have comparable anatomical outcomes. However, weak evidence of a difference in TVL and Ba was found. The strength of the evidence in this study is based on the small number of observational studies. A large, randomized trial is highly warranted.