Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2025 Feb;168(2):456-471.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.15891. Epub 2024 Sep 26.

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review

Veronica Tius  1 , Martina Arcieri  2 , Cristina Taliento  3   4 , Giulia Pellecchia  1 , Giampiero Capobianco  5 , Tommaso Simoncini  6 , Giovanni Panico  7 , Daniela Caramazza  8 , Giuseppe Campagna  8 , Lorenza Driul  1   2 , Giovanni Scambia  9 , Alfredo Ercoli  10 , Stefano Restaino  2   11 , Giuseppe Vizzielli  1   2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with concurrent hysterectomy or uterine preservation: A metanalysis and systematic review

Veronica Tius et al. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2025 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Literature is lacking strong evidence about comparisons of efficacy and quality of life-related outcomes between laparoscopic total and/or supracervical hysterectomy (LTH/LSCH) with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) and minimally invasive sacrohysteropexy (LSH).

Objective: To summarize and compare available data on this topic providing a useful clinical tool in the treatment decision process.

Search strategy: We performed a systematic research of PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science, and Gooogle Scholar.

Selection criteria: We included studies that compared at least one efficacy outcome (objective or subjective outcome) between LTH/LSCH with LSC and LSH. Data on surgery-related morbidities were also extracted where available.

Data collection and analysis: A random-effect meta-analysis was conducted reporting pooled mean differences and odds ratios (OR) between groups using Review Manager V.7.9.0.

Main results: We included a total of nine observational studies. LTH/LSCH with LSH was associated with a significantly higher objective success (apical compartment OR 7.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-28.33; I2 = 0%; P = 0.001; anterior compartment OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.26-4.30; I2 = 12%; P = 0.007) and subjective success (OR 3.19; 95% CI 1.42-7.17; I2 = 39%; P = 0.005). No differences were found regarding intraoperative and postoperative complications, sexual dysfunction, and stress urinary incontinence rate after surgery. Hysteropexy showed shorter operative time and shorter hospital length with a pool mean difference of 27.37 min (95% CI 18.04-32.71; I2 = 0%; P < 0.001) and 0.7 days (95% CI 0.24-1.17; I2 = 75%; P = 0.003), respectively. Concurrent hysterectomy was not associated with a higher rate of mesh-related complications (P = 0.53). No major differences were found regarding recurrence and reoperation rate (P = 0.10 and P = 0.93, respectively).

Conclusions: LTH/LSCH with LSC has better objective and subjective outcomes in pelvic organ prolapse surgery than LSH alone, especially for apical and anterior compartments, and is not associated with higher postoperative sexual dysfunction and mesh-related complications. Adequate preoperative counseling is highly recommended in patients who desire uterine preservation.

Prospero registration number: CRD42024537270.

Keywords: hysterectomy; hysteropexy; laparoscopy; minimally invasive surgery; pelvic organ prolapse; sacrocolpopexy; uterine preservation.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Shi W, Guo L. Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse: a meta‐analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol J Inst Obstet Gynaecol. 2023;43(1):2160929.
    1. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann‐Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2016;2016(11):CD004014. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub6
    1. Campagna G, Vacca L, Panico G, et al. Laparoscopic high uterosacral ligament suspension vs. laparoscopic sacral Colpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a case‐control study. Front Med. 2022;9:853694.
    1. De Gouveia De Sa M, Claydon LS, Whitlow B, Dolcet Artahona MA. Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(1):3‐17.
    1. Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, et al. Robot‐assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol. 2014;66(2):303‐318.

LinkOut - more resources