Comparison of two natural tissue repair-based surgical techniques; sacrospinous fixation and uterosacral ligament suspension for pelvic organ prolapse treatment

Introduction and purpose: The present study aims to compare the effectiveness and perioperative results of the natural tissue repair-based treatments sacrospinous fixation (SSF) and uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) based on the preoperative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q).

Materials and methods: Medical records of patients with stage ≥2 uterine prolapse between January 2011 and December 2016 were retrospectively examined. Preoperative POP-Q stages, demographic characteristics, perioperative results, and recurrence ratios in mid-term follow-up for patients were compared.

Results: Overall, 235 patients were determined according to our study's inclusion criteria. A total of 155 patients underwent vaginal hysterectomy and USLS (VH/USLS), whereas 80 patients underwent vaginal hysterectomy and SSF (VH/SSF). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of body mass index (BMI), age, and parity as well as cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus. There was no significant difference in terms of anatomical success and clinical success rates in the postoperative follow-up period between both groups. (p = 0.588 and 0.692, respectively). However, the assessment of results based on preoperative stages of patients revealed that recurrence and anatomical failure were higher in the stage 4 group (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Our findings indicate that the main determinant factor in evaluating recurrence rates is preoperative POP-Q staging of the patient. Recurrence rates significantly increase with disease stage. Consistent with studies that do not report a clear superiority for USLS or SSF, we observed no significant differences between both procedures in terms of recurrence. The effectiveness of these procedures is similar. We believe that prospective, long-term follow-up studies with larger populations are required to accurately identify preoperative risk factors and compare them with mesh techniques.