Pectopexy compared with sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis compares clinical outcomes between sacrocolpopexy and pectopexy for the management of pelvic organ prolapse, aiming to provide evidence-based insights to inform clinical decision-making.

METHODS

Relevant comparative studies were identified through comprehensive searches in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, as well as prospective and retrospective cohort studies. Key outcomes assessed were perioperative parameters, anatomical outcomes, recurrence rates, and complication rates. Data analysis was performed using Stata software (Version 18.0).

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies involving 764 patients met the inclusion criteria. Pectopexy demonstrated several advantages over sacrocolpopexy, including significantly shorter operation time (WMD = -34.4 min; 95 % CI = -47.12 to-21.69; p < 0.01), reduced intraoperative blood loss (WMD = -13.34 mL; 95 % CI = -21.37 to-5.32; p < 0.01), and shorter hospital stays (WMD = -0.15 days; 95 % CI = -0.26 to-0.04; p < 0.01). Postoperative bowel dysfunction was less common in the pectopexy group compared to the sacrocolpopexy group (RR = 1.09; 95 % CI = 1.02 to 1.17; p < 0.01). No significant differences were observed between the procedures in terms of postoperative satisfaction rates, recurrence rates, anatomical outcomes, postoperative quality of life, and sexual function scores.

CONCLUSION

Both pectopexy and sacrocolpopexy are effective and safe procedures for correcting pelvic organ prolapse. However, pectopexy offers advantages such as shorter operative duration, reduced intraoperative blood loss, shorter hospital stays, and reduced incidence of postoperative bowel dysfunction, supporting its use as a viable alternative in clinical practice.