Literature DB >> 23652338

Comparative outcomes of open versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy among Medicare beneficiaries.

Aqsa Khan1, Marianna Alperin, Ning Wu, J Quentin Clemens, Emily Dubina, Chris L Pashos, Jennifer T Anger.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Since the first reported laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in 1991, a limited number of single-center studies have attempted to assess the procedure's effectiveness and safety. Therefore, we analyzed a national Medicare database to compare real-world short-term outcomes of open and laparoscopically assisted (including robotic) sacrocolpopexy in a United States sample of patients.
METHODS: Public Use File data for a 5% random national sample of all Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the years 2004-2008. Women with pelvic organ prolapse were identified using ICD-9 diagnosis codes. CPT-4 procedure codes were used to identify women who underwent open (code 57280) or laparoscopic (code 57425) sacrocolpopexy. Individual subjects were followed for 1 year post-operatively. Outcomes measured, using ICD-9 and CPT-4 codes, included medical and surgical complications and re-operation rates.
RESULTS: Seven hundred and ninety-four women underwent open and 176 underwent laparoscopic (including robotic) sacrocolpopexy. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy was associated with a significantly increased rate of re-operation for anterior vaginal wall prolapse (3.4% vs 1.0%, p = 0.018). However, more medical (primarily cardiopulmonary) complications occurred post-operatively in the open group (31.5% vs 22.7%, p = 0.023). When sacrocolpopexy was performed with concomitant hysterectomy, mesh-related complications were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (5.4% vs 0%, p = 0.026).
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy resulted in an increased rate of reoperation for prolapse in the anterior compartment. When hysterectomy was performed at the time of sacrocolpopexy, the laparoscopic approach was associated with an increased risk of mesh-related complications.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23652338      PMCID: PMC3906125          DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2088-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  16 in total

1.  New technology and health care costs--the case of robot-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Gabriel I Barbash; Sherry A Glied
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

Review 3.  Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women.

Authors:  Christopher Maher; Benjamin Feiner; Kaven Baessler; Elisabeth J Adams; Suzanne Hagen; Cathryn Ma Glazener
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-04-14

4.  Laparoscopic compared with robotic sacrocolpopexy for vaginal prolapse: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Marie Fidela R Paraiso; J Eric Jelovsek; Anna Frick; Chi Chung Grace Chen; Matthew D Barber
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Complications of sling surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries.

Authors:  Jennifer T Anger; Mark S Litwin; Qin Wang; Chris L Pashos; Larissa V Rodríguez
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy versus total vaginal mesh for vaginal vault prolapse: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Christopher F Maher; Benjamin Feiner; Eva M DeCuyper; Cathy J Nichlos; Kacey V Hickey; Peter O'Rourke
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  Abdominal sacrocolpopexy: a comprehensive review.

Authors:  Ingrid E Nygaard; Rebecca McCreery; Linda Brubaker; AnnaMarie Connolly; Geoff Cundiff; Anne M Weber; Halina Zyczynski
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Variations in stress incontinence and prolapse management by surgeon specialty.

Authors:  Jennifer T Anger; Mark S Litwin; Qin Wang; Chris L Pashos; Larissa V Rodríguez
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2007-08-16       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  A randomised controlled trial of abdominal versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: LAS study.

Authors:  R M Freeman; K Pantazis; A Thomson; J Frappell; L Bombieri; P Moran; M Slack; P Scott; M Waterfield
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 2.894

10.  Prevalence and risk factors for mesh erosion after laparoscopic-assisted sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager; Emily S Lukacz
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-09-15       Impact factor: 2.894

View more
  5 in total

Review 1.  The use of synthetic mesh for vaginal prolapse in the UK: a review of cases submitted to the British Society of Urogynaecology database.

Authors:  Ruben D Trochez; Steven Lane; Jonathan Duckett
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 2.  Laparoscopic versus open sacrocolpopexy for treatment of prolapse of the apical segment of the vagina: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maribel De Gouveia De Sa; Leica Sarah Claydon; Barry Whitlow; Maria Angelica Dolcet Artahona
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-08-07       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Anique M J van Oudheusden; Ben Willem J Mol; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Marlies Y Bongers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-04-17       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  The Novel and Minimally Invasive Treatment Modalities for Female Pelvic Floor Muscle Dysfunction; Beyond the Traditional

Authors:  Yiğit Akın; Matthew Young; Muhammad Elmussareh; Nickolaus Charalampogiannis; Ali Serdar Gözen
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2018-06-28       Impact factor: 2.021

Review 5.  Clinical challenges in the management of vaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Nazema Y Siddiqui; Autumn L Edenfield
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2014-01-16
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.