A randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing uterine preserving laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh versus laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) significantly affects women's quality of life, occurring in 20–30% of females aged over 20 globally. With aging populations, demand for pelvic reconstructive surgery is rising. Patients seek anatomical restoration while preserving uterus and sexual function. Sacrohysteropexy is the gold standard for apical prolapse, but carries risks. Lateral suspension, offers safer apical and anterior correction especially for obese, sexually active women. Our prospective study compares laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and lateral suspension objectively and subjectively. The study included patients who had laparoscopic lateral suspension (n = 22) or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (n = 22) for symptomatic stage 2 apical prolapse. Groups randomized with using block design. Anatomical cure was based on measurements taken by the same physician, unaware of intervention, before and at 12 months using POP-Q score. Pelvic floor ultrasound also used for objective rates. Subjective comparison used Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QoL), Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Symptom Score (POP-SS), Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Visual Analog Score (VAS), and Michigan Incontinence Severity Index (M-ISI). Age, BMI, parity, menopause, sexual activity, complications, showed no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). Surgical procedure duration significantly varied between groups lateral suspension group was shorter. There was no significant difference in post operative complications. No significant differences in posterior/enterocele stages.) Anterior staging showed no significant difference in sacrouteropexy (p = 0.130), but significant difference in lateral suspension group (p