Literature DB >> 23677313

Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse.

Ingrid Nygaard1, Linda Brubaker, Halina M Zyczynski, Geoffrey Cundiff, Holly Richter, Marie Gantz, Paul Fine, Shawn Menefee, Beri Ridgeway, Anthony Visco, Lauren Klein Warren, Min Zhang, Susan Meikle.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: More than 225 000 surgeries are performed annually in the United States for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Abdominal sacrocolpopexy is considered the most durable POP surgery, but little is known about safety and long-term effectiveness.
OBJECTIVES: To describe anatomic and symptomatic outcomes up to 7 years after abdominal sacrocolpopexy, and to determine whether these are affected by concomitant anti-incontinence surgery (Burch urethropexy). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Long-term follow-up of the randomized, masked 2-year Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts (CARE) trial of women with stress continence who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy between 2002 and 2005 for symptomatic POP and also received either concomitant Burch urethropexy or no urethropexy. Ninety-two percent (215/233) of eligible 2-year CARE trial completers were enrolled in the extended CARE study; and 181 (84%) and 126 (59%) completed 5 and 7 years of follow-up, respectively. The median follow-up was 7 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Symptomatic POP failure requiring retreatment or self-reported bulge; or anatomic POP failure requiring retreatment or Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification evaluation demonstrating descent of the vaginal apex below the upper third of the vagina, or anterior or posterior vaginal wall prolapse beyond the hymen. Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) with more than 1 symptom or interval treatment; or overall UI score of 3 or greater on the Incontinence Severity Index.
RESULTS: By year 7, the estimated probabilities of treatment failure (POP, SUI, UI) from parametric survival modeling for the urethropexy group and the no urethropexy group, respectively, were 0.27 and 0.22 for anatomic POP (treatment difference of 0.050; 95% CI, -0.161 to 0.271), 0.29 and 0.24 for symptomatic POP (treatment difference of 0.049; 95% CI, -0.060 to 0.162), 0.48 and 0.34 for composite POP (treatment difference of 0.134; 95% CI, -0.096 to 0.322), 0.62 and 0.77 for SUI (treatment difference of -0.153; 95% CI, -0.268 to 0.030), and 0.75 and 0.81 for overall UI (treatment difference of -0.064; 95% CI, -0.161 to 0.032). Mesh erosion probability at 7 years (estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method) was 10.5% (95% CI, 6.8% to 16.1%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During 7 years of follow-up, abdominal sacrocolpopexy failure rates increased in both groups. Urethropexy prevented SUI longer than no urethropexy. Abdominal sacrocolpopexy effectiveness should be balanced with long-term risks of mesh or suture erosion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00099372.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23677313      PMCID: PMC3747840          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.4919

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  24 in total

1.  Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States.

Authors:  L L Subak; L E Waetjen; S van den Eeden; D H Thom; E Vittinghoff; J S Brown
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Simultaneous splenectomy increases risk for opportunistic pneumonia in patients after liver transplantation.

Authors:  Ulf P Neumann; Jan M Langrehr; Udo Kaisers; Martina Lang; Volker Schmitz; Peter Neuhaus
Journal:  Transpl Int       Date:  2002-04-06       Impact factor: 3.782

3.  Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997.

Authors:  Sarah Hamilton Boyles; Anne M Weber; Leslie Meyn
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Symptomatic and anatomic 1-year outcomes after robotic and abdominal sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Nazema Y Siddiqui; Elizabeth J Geller; Anthony G Visco
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-02-01       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.

Authors:  R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Pelvic organ prolapse repair with and without prophylactic concomitant Burch colposuspension in continent women: a randomized, controlled trial with 8-year followup.

Authors:  Elisabetta Costantini; Massimo Lazzeri; Vittorio Bini; Michele Del Zingaro; Alessandro Zucchi; Massimo Porena
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2011-04-16       Impact factor: 7.450

7.  Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  M D Barber; M N Kuchibhatla; C F Pieper; R C Bump
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States, 1997.

Authors:  Jeanette S Brown; L Elaine Waetjen; Leslee L Subak; David H Thom; Stephen Van den Eeden; Eric Vittinghoff
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  A randomized trial of colpopexy and urinary reduction efforts (CARE): design and methods.

Authors:  Linda Brubaker; Geoff Cundiff; Paul Fine; Ingrid Nygaard; Holly Richter; Anthony Visco; Halina Zyczynski; Morton B Brown; Anne Weber
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  2003-10

Review 10.  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

View more
  137 in total

1.  "Mommy, how will the baby get out of your tummy? Will it hurt you?"

Authors:  John O L DeLancey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Differences in recurrent prolapse at 1 year after total vs supracervical hysterectomy and robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Authors:  Erinn M Myers; Lauren Siff; Blake Osmundsen; Elizabeth Geller; Catherine A Matthews
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Abdominal sacral colpopexy versus sacrospinous ligament fixation: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Mika S Ohno; Monica L Richardson; Eric R Sokol
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  Pelvic Prolapse Repair in the Era of Mesh.

Authors:  Natalie Gaines; Priyanka Gupta; Larry T Sirls
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Long-term outcome after transvaginal mesh repair of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Pia Heinonen; Riikka Aaltonen; Kirsi Joronen; Seija Ala-Nissilä
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 6.  Mesh Perforation into a Viscus in the Setting of Pelvic Floor Surgery-Presentation and Management.

Authors:  Seth A Cohen; Howard B Goldman
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 3.092

7.  Clinical application of IUGA/ICS classification system for mesh erosion.

Authors:  Rebecca Posthuma Batalden; Milena M Weinstein; Caroline Foust-Wright; Marianna Alperin; May M Wakamatsu; Samantha J Pulliam
Journal:  Neurourol Urodyn       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 2.696

Review 8.  Management of apical pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Alexandriah N Alas; Jennifer T Anger
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 3.092

9.  A pilot study comparing anatomic failure after sacrocolpopexy with absorbable or permanent sutures for vaginal mesh attachment.

Authors:  Jasmine Tan-Kim; Shawn A Menefee; Quinn Lippmann; Emily S Lukacz; Karl M Luber; Charles W Nager
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2014

10.  Levator bowl volume during straining and its relationship to other levator measures.

Authors:  Lahari Nandikanti; Anne G Sammarco; Luyun Chen; James A Ashton-Miller; John O DeLancey
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 2.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.