Comparison of Unilateral and Bilateral Sacrospinous Ligament Fixation Using Minimally Invasive Anchorage

Objective The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a newly developed anchoring system for unilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation (USSLF) and bilateral sacrospinous ligament fixation (BSSLF) procedures. Material and Methods Ninety-three patients with pelvic prolapse who were treated surgically with the Anchorsure System ^® between 2013 and 2018 were included in the study. USSLF was performed in 52 patients (group 1), and BSSLF was performed in 41 patients (group 2). Pelvic organ prolapse was assessed preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. Results There were no significant differences between groups 1 and 2 with regard to age, parity, and demographic characteristics. Anatomical improvement rates were similar, irrespective of the type of SSLF used. No bleeding requiring blood transfusion or organ injuries occurred in any patient. Three patients in the group that received BSSLF developed small asymptomatic cystoceles (grade 1 to 2); there was no recurrence of rectoceles or enteroceles. Mild cystocele was found in 1 patient from the USSLF group. There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the recurrence of cystocele. Recurrence of vaginal vault prolapse was found in 2 patients from the USSLF group (3.84%). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to recurrence. Febrile morbidity, clinical outcomes, blood loss, duration of operation, intraoperative complications, and length of hospital stay were similar for the two groups. Conclusions Unilateral and bilateral SSLF techniques produce similar clinical outcomes. USSLF and BSSLF performed using the new anchoring system are safe and effective methods to treat pelvic organ prolapse.