Comparison of Anatomic Results Between Bilateral and Conventional Abdominal Sacral Hysteropexy

Randomized Single Blind Controlled Trial of Comparison of Anatomic and Sexual Outcomes Between Conventional and Bilateral Sacral Hysteropexy

Investigators separated 20 patients with uterovaginal prolapse into 2 groups according to random numbers table. In one group, conventional abdominal sacral hysteropexy will be perform and another group bilateral abdominal sacral hysteropexy will be perform with polypropylene mesh. After 1 mont operation vaginal configuration will be evaluate with MRI on three plane (axial, sagittal, coronal). Then the results of thus two groups will be compare to results of nullipara patients. Investigators will investigate which technique keep the vaginal axis is closer to the original anatomic position.

Since vaginal hysterectomy and mc call culdoplasty, many techniques have been described. Before, correcting only prolapsed part, now, we can measure anatomical and functional results more objectively by using different tool such us MRI, perineal ultrasonography, PISQ-12, IIQ-7 (Incontinence impact questionnaire). Hence pelvic organ prolapse surgery is important in terms of anatomic and functional results. Unilateral abdominal sacral hysteropexy can put vaginal axis to right side slightly. Therefore investigators hypothesized that bilateral sacral hysteropexy which mimic sacrouterine ligament can be more suitable in terms of anatomic results.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Women with stage 3 or more pelvic organ prolapse

Exclusion Criteria:

• Women with abnormal uterine bleeding, abnormal cervical screening test, myoma uteri and want to hysterectomy