Sacrospinous Hysteropexy Versus Prolapse Hysterectomy with Apical Fixation: A Retrospective Comparison over an 18 Year Period

Background. Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common health problem, with a high lifetime risk for prolapse surgery. Uterine-preserving procedures such as vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) have become an increasingly utilized surgical option for the primary treatment of POP. We wanted to evaluate peri- and postoperative outcome parameters of SSH as an alternative to vaginal hysterectomy with apical fixation. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted (2003-2021). All patients who underwent primary SSH (study group) for symptomatic POP were matched 1:1 by age and BMI with patients who underwent primary prolapse hysterectomy with apical fixation (control group). Results. A total of 192 patients were included with 96 patients in the each of the SSH and hysterectomy groups. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics. The SSH group show a significantly shorter mean surgery time (p < 0.001), significantly fewer hospitalization days (p < 0.001), and significantly less intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.033) in comparison to the control group. Neither group had any intraoperative complication, or an intraoperative conversion to other surgical management options. No statistically significant difference was found in postoperative complications as categorized by the Clavien-Dindo classification or in postoperative urogynecological issues (UTI, de-novo, incontinence, residual urine, voiding disorders). Through log regression, none of the confounding factors such as age, BMI, or preoperative POP-Q stage could be identified as independent risk factors for the occurrence of postoperative complications. Conclusions. Our results confirm that a uterus-preserving technique has many benefits and, thus, should be considered as an additional intermediate step in a long-term treatment plan of pelvic organ prolapse.