Skip to main content

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW article

Front. Med.
Sec. Obstetrics and Gynecology
Volume 11 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1399247

Surgical Outcomes of Sacrospinous Hysteropexy and Hysteropreservation for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Provisionally accepted
Xinyu Xiao Xinyu Xiao 1Xia Yu Xia Yu 2*Litong Yin Litong Yin 1Ling Zhang Ling Zhang 1*Dan Feng Dan Feng 1*Lushuang Zhang Lushuang Zhang 1*Zhaolin Gong Zhaolin Gong 1*Qiang Zhang Qiang Zhang 1Yonghong Lin Yonghong Lin 1Li He Li He 1*
  • 1 Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
  • 2 Department of Clinical Laboratory, Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Objective: In several randomized controlled trials (RCTs), sacrospinous hysteropexy and other forms of hysteropreservation have been compared. Nevertheless, there is no definitively best treatment. This study summarized RCT evidence for various uterine preservation surgical procedures.From each database inception to August 2023, we searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for eligible RCTs. A comparison was made between sacrospinous hysteropexy and other hysteropreservation, including vaginal and abdominal surgery. For categorical and continuous variables, relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) were calculated using random-effects models.Results: We reviewed a total 1,398 studies and ultimately included five RCTs that met all inclusion criteria. These five studies included a total of 1,372 uterine POP cases all of whom received transvaginal surgery and had a follow-up period for assessment of recurrence from 12 months to 5 years.There were no significant differences between sacrospinous hysteropexy and other hysteropreservation for the incidences of recurrence (

    Keywords: Sacrospinous hysteropexy, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Hysteropreservation, Urinary tract infection, Meta-analysis

    Received: 11 Mar 2024; Accepted: 11 Jul 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Xiao, Yu, Yin, Zhang, Feng, Zhang, Gong, Zhang, Lin and He. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence:
    Xia Yu, Department of Clinical Laboratory, Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
    Ling Zhang, Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
    Dan Feng, Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
    Lushuang Zhang, Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
    Zhaolin Gong, Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China
    Li He, Chengdu Women and Children’s Central Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, China

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.