Literature DB >> 26366666

Rates of colpopexy and colporrhaphy at the time of hysterectomy for prolapse.

Pamela S Fairchild1, Neil S Kamdar2, Mitchell B Berger2, Daniel M Morgan2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: It has been shown that addressing apical support at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) reduces recurrence and reoperation rates. In fact, national guidelines consider hysterectomy alone to be inadequate treatment for POP. Despite this, anterior and posterior colporrhaphy are frequently performed without a colpopexy procedure and hysterectomy alone is often utilized for treatment of prolapse.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to: (1) determine rates of concomitant procedures for POP in hysterectomies performed with POP as an indication, (2) identify factors associated with performance of a colpopexy at the time of hysterectomy for POP, and (3) identify the influence of surgical complexity on perioperative complication rates. STUDY
DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study of hysterectomies performed for POP from Jan. 1, 2013, through May 7, 2014, in a statewide surgical quality database. Patients were stratified based on procedures performed: hysterectomy alone, hysterectomy with colporrhaphy and without apical suspension, and hysterectomy with colpopexy with or without colporrhaphy. Demographics, medical history and intraoperative care, and perioperative care were compared between the groups. Multivariable logistic regression models were created to identify factors independently associated with use of colpopexy and factors associated with increased rates of postoperative complications.
RESULTS: POP was an indication in 1557 hysterectomies. Most hysterectomies were vaginal (59.6%), followed by laparoscopic or robotic (34.1%), and abdominal (6.2%). Hysterectomy alone was performed in 43.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 40.6-45.6) of cases, 32.8% (95% CI, 30.4-35.1) had a colporrhaphy without colpopexy, and 24.1% (95% CI, 22-26.3) had a colpopexy with or without colporrhaphy. Use of colpopexy was independently associated with patient age >40 years, POP as the only indication for surgery (odd ratio [OR], 1.6; 95% CI, 1.185-2.230), laparoscopic surgery (OR, 3.2; 95% CI, 2.860-5.153), and a surgeon specializing in urogynecology (OR, 8.2; 95% CI, 5.156-12.923). The overall perioperative complication rate was 6.6%, with the majority being considered minor. Complications were more likely when the procedure was performed with an abdominal approach (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.088-4.686), with the use of a colpopexy procedure (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.840-5.194), and by a surgeon specializing in urogynecology (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.144-4.315).
CONCLUSION: Colpopexy and colporrhaphy may be underutilized and are potential targets for quality improvement. Performance of additional procedures at the time of hysterectomy increased the rate of perioperative complications. Long-term consequences of these surgical practices deserve additional study.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  apical suspension; colpopexy; colporrhaphy; pelvic organ prolapse; surgical quality measures

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26366666      PMCID: PMC4744488          DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.053

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  14 in total

1.  A comparison of women with primary and recurrent pelvic prolapse.

Authors:  K Kenton; D Sadowski; S Shott; L Brubaker
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Reoperation 10 years after surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Authors:  Mary Anna Denman; W Thomas Gregory; Sarah H Boyles; Virginia Smith; S Renee Edwards; Amanda L Clark
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2008-03-20       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 85: Pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Kelly L Kantartzis; Lindsay C Turner; Jonathan P Shepherd; Li Wang; Daniel G Winger; Jerry L Lowder
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-09-03       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Practice patterns of general gynecologic surgeons versus gynecologic subspecialists for concomitant apical suspension during vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Ladin A Yurteri-Kaplan; Mihriye M Mete; Chris St Clair; Cheryl B Iglesia
Journal:  South Med J       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 0.954

6.  Incidence of adverse events after uterosacral colpopexy for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vault prolapse.

Authors:  Cecile A Unger; Mark D Walters; Beri Ridgeway; J Eric Jelovsek; Matthew D Barber; Marie Fidela R Paraiso
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  Measuring the quality of care provided to women with pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Alexandriah N Alas; Catherine Bresee; Karyn Eilber; Karen Toubi; Rezoana Rashid; Carol Roth; Paul Shekelle; Neil Wenger; Jennifer T Anger
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 8.  Pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  J Eric Jelovsek; Christopher Maher; Matthew D Barber
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-03-24       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Lifetime risk of surgical management for pelvic organ prolapse or urinary incontinence.

Authors:  M F Fialkow; K M Newton; G M Lentz; N S Weiss
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-09-26

10.  Incidence of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse 10 years following primary surgical management: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Michael F Fialkow; Katherine M Newton; Noel S Weiss
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-08-06
View more
  7 in total

1.  Utilization of apical vaginal support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy performed for benign conditions: a national estimate.

Authors:  Whitney Trotter Ross; Melanie R Meister; Jonathan P Shepherd; Margaret A Olsen; Jerry L Lowder
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-07-14       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  Teaching learners to raise the roof: a vaginal surgery simulator for apical suspension.

Authors:  Cassandra K Kisby; Mary V Baker; Isabel C Green; John A Occhino
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-06-06       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Surgical trends and patient factors associated with the treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse from a national sample.

Authors:  Emily A Slopnick; Andrey Petrikovets; David Sheyn; Simon P Kim; Carvell T Nguyen; Adonis K Hijaz
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Is performing sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy and McCall's culdoplasty for advanced uterovaginal prolapse preferable over McCall's culdoplasty alone?

Authors:  Deepa Rajan; Patsy Varghese; Mariam Roy; Kunjamma Roy; Alice David
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2019-09-11

5.  Regional Performance of Apical Support Procedures at Time of Hysterectomy for Benign Indications: What Is the Role of Surgeon Training?

Authors:  Jessica G Putman; Melanie R Meister; Stacy M Lenger; Jerry L Lowder
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 1.913

6.  The effect of diagnosis-related group payment system on the quality of medical care for pelvic organ prolapse in Korean tertiary hospitals.

Authors:  Myung Jae Jeon; Sung Pil Choo; Young Hwa Kwak; Dong Wook Kim; Eui Hyeok Kim
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  High Uterosacral Ligament Fixation Versus McCall's Culdoplasty for Vaginal Vault Suspension in Utero-Vaginal Prolapse Surgery.

Authors:  Aruna Verma; Monika Kashyap; Abhilasha Gupta
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-07-27
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.