Sybil G Dessie1, Alex Shapiro, Miriam J Haviland, Michele R Hacker, Eman A Elkadry. 1. From the *Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mount Auburn Hospital, Cambridge; †Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; and ‡Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate outcomes among women 70 years and older who underwent obliterative compared with reconstructive procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients 70 years and older who underwent surgical prolapse repair at our institution from January 2004 through June 2010. Only patients with at least 4 weeks of follow-up were included. Patient characteristics and relevant pre, intra, and postoperative information were abstracted from medical records. Severity of postoperative complications was classified using the Dindo surgical classification system. RESULTS: We analyzed 143 (97.3%) patients. Fifty-four (37.8%) women underwent an obliterative procedure, whereas 89 (62.2%) underwent a reconstructive procedure. Twenty-eight (31.5%) women who had a reconstructive surgery met our criteria for recurrent prolapse compared with only 5 (9.3%) women in the obliterative group (P = 0.002).The incidence of intraoperative complication was 4.9%, and the incidence of any postoperative complication was 62.9%. Similar proportions of women who underwent each type of procedure experienced a postoperative complication. However, the severity of the complications differed between the groups (P = 0.02). In particular, 16.9% of women who had a reconstructive procedure experienced a grade III complication according to the Dindo scale compared with 13.0% of women who had an obliterative procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of women 70 years and older do not have high-grade complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair, but women who undergo reconstructive procedures are more likely to experience high-grade complications and recurrent prolapse compared with women who undergo obliterative procedures.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate outcomes among women 70 years and older who underwent obliterative compared with reconstructive procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients 70 years and older who underwent surgical prolapse repair at our institution from January 2004 through June 2010. Only patients with at least 4 weeks of follow-up were included. Patient characteristics and relevant pre, intra, and postoperative information were abstracted from medical records. Severity of postoperative complications was classified using the Dindo surgical classification system. RESULTS: We analyzed 143 (97.3%) patients. Fifty-four (37.8%) women underwent an obliterative procedure, whereas 89 (62.2%) underwent a reconstructive procedure. Twenty-eight (31.5%) women who had a reconstructive surgery met our criteria for recurrent prolapse compared with only 5 (9.3%) women in the obliterative group (P = 0.002).The incidence of intraoperative complication was 4.9%, and the incidence of any postoperative complication was 62.9%. Similar proportions of women who underwent each type of procedure experienced a postoperative complication. However, the severity of the complications differed between the groups (P = 0.02). In particular, 16.9% of women who had a reconstructive procedure experienced a grade III complication according to the Dindo scale compared with 13.0% of women who had an obliterative procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of women 70 years and older do not have high-grade complications after pelvic organ prolapse repair, but women who undergo reconstructive procedures are more likely to experience high-grade complications and recurrent prolapse compared with women who undergo obliterative procedures.
Authors: Vivian W Sung; Sherry Weitzen; Eric R Sokol; Charles R Rardin; Deborah L Myers Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Barbara L Robinson; Brent A Parnell; Jennifer T Sandbulte; Elizabeth J Geller; AnnaMarie Connolly; Catherine A Matthews Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Mary P FitzGerald; Holly E Richter; Sohail Siddique; Peter Thompson; Halina Zyczynski Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2005-06-28
Authors: Cheryl B Iglesia; Andrew I Sokol; Eric R Sokol; Bela I Kudish; Robert E Gutman; Joanna L Peterson; Susan Shott Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 7.661
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
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrea Braga; Maurizio Serati; Stefano Salvatore; Marco Torella; Roberto Pasqualetti; Andrea Papadia; Giorgio Caccia Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 2.894