The following is a summary of “Meta-analysis of the efficacy of laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension in patients with pelvic organ prolapse,” published in the December 2023  issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology by Xu, et al.

Using a meta-analysis method, this study looked at how well laparoscopic uterosacral ligament suspension (LUSLS) worked for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Search tools like PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and Chinese Medical Journals were used to find all English-language papers about LUSLS between January 2010 and January 2020. 

Two reviewers used RevMan 5.3 software to do the meta-analysis based on the criteria for admission. There was no difference between the groups in the number of complications, length of stay in the hospital, or POP-Q>=II (P > 0.05). LUSLS was a safe way to treat POP that worked well.

At last, five studies with 361 LUSLS cases and 361 comparison cases were added. There were significant differences between the LUSLS group and the control group. The LUSLS group had a shorter operation time (SMD-1.96; 95% CI = −3.90-−0.03; P = 0.05) and more POP-quantification system (Q) (I) (SMD1.64; 95% CI = 1.05–2.56; P = 0.03). There was no difference between the groups in the number of complications, length of stay in the hospital, or POP-Q>=II (P > 0.05). LUSLS was a safe way to treat POP that worked well. Patients were happier after surgery, the surgery took less time, and the results were good. In the future, there needs to be more high-quality randomized controlled studies so that the meta-analysis data are more accurate.

Source: sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468784723001010