Sacrohysteropexy without mesh for apical prolapse versus a vaginal approach

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the use of abdominal sacrohysteropexy for the treatment of uterine prolapse without using a mesh versus vaginal sacrospinous fixation in the treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Design Randomized-controlled trial. Setting Tertiary referral center. Participants and methods Women were randomized into two groups: group I included 20 women who had undergone abdominal sacrohysteropexy with no mesh for the treatment of uterine prolapse. Group II included 20 women who had undergone vaginal sacrospinous fixation. All women were diagnosed as having third-degree or fourth-degree uterovaginal prolapse. Results There was no significant difference between both the groups in the intraoperative or postoperative complications. At the 1-year follow-up postoperatively, there was no statistically significant difference between both the groups in the anatomical results. There were two apical prolapse recurrences of grade two in both the groups with abdominal and vaginal operations. Conclusion Sacrohysteropexy without a mesh is safe, easy, low cost, and effective, with the benefits of uterine preservation in comparison with vaginal operations.