Transvaginal Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Laparoscopic Uterine Lateral Suspension

Pelvic organ prolapse can be treated either conservatively or surgically. Patients who are unsatisfied with conservative treatment or with severe symptoms often seek for surgical intervention. Transvaginal or transabdominal surgeries are current choices of uterus-preserving surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse. Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is the current trend for laparoscopic surgery, with small incisional wound, fast recovery, and low recurrence rate as advantages. However, laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy is often regarded as time consuming and ous sometimes hazard given the complexity of surgical technique and the anatomy of the presacral region. Few cases with severe complications such as vascular injuries, sacral nerve root injuries, and diskitis had been reported with laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in previous studies. Laparoscopic lateral uterine suspension, a modified surgical approach of uterine suspension from bilateral abdominal wall fascia, is therefore proposed in our study. The most significant benefits of this novel approach include safety and simplicity of surgery besides advantages including small wound incision and fast recovery in laparoscopic surgeries. This trial aim to discuss the therapeutic efficacy of laparoscopic lateral uterine suspension and compare with the transvaginal sacrospinous ligament fixation with native tissue repair. Other results include safety and adverse events of laparoscopic lateral uterine suspension in long term follow up.