Laparoscopic and robot-assisted suture versus mesh hysteropexy: a retrospective comparison

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesisOur study was aimed at comparing the outcomes of laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture-based hysteropexy (SutureH) versus sacral hysteropexy using mesh (MeshH) for bothersome uterine prolapse. Our hypothesis is that MeshH is more successful and provides better uterine support than SutureH.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of 228 consecutive women who underwent re-suspension of the uterus using uterosacral ligaments (SutureH n=97) or a “U-shaped” mesh from the sacral promontory (MeshH, n=132). Surgery was performed by laparoscopy or robot-assisted laparoscopy. Subjects were assessed at baseline, 1 year, and beyond 1 year. The null hypothesis, that SutureH and MeshH have similar success, was based on a composite outcome (“composite success”), and that they provide the same level of uterine support, was based on POP-Q point C at 1 year. “Composite success” was defined as: POP-Q point C above the hymen; absence of a vaginal bulge; no repeat uterine prolapse surgery or pessary placement. Other outcomes included improvement in symptomology using Patient Global Impression of Improvement, POP-Q point C change and complications.ResultsFollow-up data were available for 191 out of 228 women. “Composite success” was not significantly different between MeshH and SutureH groups (81.7% vs 84.5%, p=0.616). MeshH provided better elevation of the uterus than SutureH (point C change: −7.38cm vs −6.99cm; p<0.001). Similar symptom improvement and low complications occurred in both groups.ConclusionsLaparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic suture hysteropexy and mesh sacral hysteropexy provide women with minimally invasive, durable surgical options for uterine preservation. “Composite success” was similar in the two groups, but MeshH provided better uterine support than SutureH. However, SutureH gives women an effective mesh-free option.