Vaginal Colposuspension Using the Uphold Lite Mesh System versus Transvaginal Hysterectomy with Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for Treatment of Apical Prolapse: A Comparative Study

Permanent Compared With Absorbable Suture in Apical Prolapse Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To explore how permanent compared with absorbable suture affects anatomic success in native tissue vaginal suspension (uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension) and sacrocolpopexy with mesh.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through March 29, 2022.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Our population included women undergoing apical prolapse surgery (uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension and abdominal sacrocolpopexy). Our intervention was permanent suture for apical prolapse surgery, and our comparator was absorbable suture. We determined a single anatomic success proportion per study. Adverse events collected included suture and mesh exposure, surgery for suture and mesh complication, dyspareunia, and granulation tissue. Abstracts were doubly screened, full-text articles were doubly screened, and accepted articles were doubly extracted. Quality of studies was assessed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. In single-arm studies using either permanent or absorbable suture, random effects meta-analyses of pooled proportions were used to assess anatomic success. In comparative studies investigating both suture types, random effects meta-analyses of pooled risk ratios were used.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Of 4,658 abstracts screened, 398 full-text articles were assessed and 63 studies were included (24 vaginal suspension [13 uterosacral ligament suspension and 11 sacrospinous ligament suspension] and 39 sacrocolpopexy). At 2-year follow-up, there was no difference in permanent compared with absorbable suture in uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension (proportional anatomic success rate 88% [95% CI 0.81-0.93] vs 88% [95% CI 0.82-0.92]). Similarly, at 18-month follow-up, there was no difference in permanent compared with absorbable suture in sacrocolpopexy (proportional anatomic success rate 92% [95% CI 0.88-0.95] vs 96% [95% CI 0.92-0.99]). On meta-analysis, there was no difference in relative risk (RR) of success for permanent compared with absorbable suture for uterosacral ligament suspension and sacrospinous ligament suspension (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.33) or sacrocolpopexy (RR 1.00, 95% CI0.98-1.03).

CONCLUSION

Success rates were similarly high for absorbable and permanent suture after uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrospinous ligament suspension, and sacrocolpopexy, with medium-term follow-up.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42021265848.

Long term surgical outcomes of vaginal colposuspension using the Uphold Lite™ mesh system vs. vaginal vault uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of apical prolapse

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare long-term outcomes (7-10 years) between vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension (VHUSLS) and sacrospinous hysteropexy with the Uphold™ Lite mesh System (SHU) for management of apical prolapse.

METHODS

Patients undergoing VHUSLS or SHU from 2008 to 2012 at a single tertiary referral center were included. Patients were contacted, asked to return for physical examination, and to complete the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) questionnaire. Our primary outcome was anatomic failure defined as Stage 2 POP or higher of any compartment. The secondary outcome was subjective changes in symptoms based upon PFDI-20 responses.

RESULTS

Two-hundred and two women were identified to have undergone the index surgeries from 2008 to 2012. Sixty-three agreed to return for follow up symptom evaluation and examination (30 VHUSLS and 33 SHU). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Clinical cure was high for both groups reaching 93.4 % and 94.0 % for the VHUSLS and SHU groups, respectively (p = 0.721). Anatomical success was lower with 44.7 % and 66.7 % of patients in the VHUSLS and SHU groups, respectively, meeting criteria for success (p = 0.138). There were no mesh complications among patients returning for exams. However, two patients who were contacted and were not interested in this study reported mesh complications and need for additional surgeries. Anterior vaginal wall support was noted to be significantly better supported for SHU (Ba -2.03 ± 0.75 vs -1.42 ± 0.92, p = 0.008). There were no differences between groups for overall PFDI-20 scores postoperatively. However, SHU patients reported higher rates of stress urinary incontinence compared to VHUSLS patients.

CONCLUSION

In women with apical prolapse, VHUSLS and SHU afford similar long-term outcomes. SHU patients reported higher rates of stress urinary incontinence.