Literature DB >> 28723720

Trends in Hysteropexy and Apical Support for Uterovaginal Prolapse in the United States from 2002 to 2012.

Annetta M Madsen1, Christina Raker, Vivian W Sung.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to describe trends in hysteropexy and apical support for uterovaginal prolapse (UVP) from 2002 to 2012 in the United States. We identified patient and hospital variables associated with hysteropexy and apical support.
METHODS: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes to identify a population of women 18 years or older with UVP undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2012. Procedures were categorized as (1) hysteropexy, (2) obliterative with uterine preservation, (3) hysterectomy with apical support, (4) hysterectomy without apical support, and (5) other reconstruction without apical support. Categories were dichotomized into those with and without apical support. We used survey weights to obtain nationally representative estimates; χ and linear and logistic regression compared procedure groups.
RESULTS: An estimated 815,184 hospital discharges of pelvic organ prolapse procedures for UVP occurred from 2002 to 2012. During this time, hysteropexies increased from 1.81% to 5.00% (P < 0.0001). From 2002 to 2012, hysterectomies with apical support increased (10.07% to 32.51%, P < 0.0001), hysterectomy without apical support decreased (27.14% to 17.12%, P < 0.0001), and reconstruction without apical support decreased (59.07% to 40.48%, P < 0.0001). In most recent years 2011 to 2012, 60% of women with UVP underwent inpatient surgery without an apical procedure. Age 52 years or older, Medicare payment, Northeast region, and urban teaching hospitals were associated with increased odds of apical support for UVP (P < 0.001 for all).
CONCLUSIONS: Hysteropexy significantly increased in the United States from 2002 to 2012, although the overall proportion remains low. While hysterectomy without apical support is decreasing, approximately 60% of inpatient procedures performed for UVP do not address the apex.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28723720     DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000426

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 2151-8378            Impact factor:   2.091


  7 in total

1.  Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines.

Authors:  Kate V Meriwether; Ethan M Balk; Danielle D Antosh; Cedric K Olivera; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Miles Murphy; Cara L Grimes; Ambereen Sleemi; Ruchira Singh; Alexis A Dieter; Catrina C Crisp; David D Rahn
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark.

Authors:  Karen Ruben Husby; Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2019-01-04       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  Role of Hysteropexy in the Management of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

Authors:  Zoe S Gan; Daniel S Roberson; Ariana L Smith
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2022-07-05       Impact factor: 2.862

Review 4.  Pelvic organ prolapse recurrence after pregnancy following uterine-sparing prolapse repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sarah B Andebrhan; Ashley T Caron; Alec Szlachta-McGinn; Pooja S Parameshwar; Nicholas J Jackson; Amy E Rosenman; Jennifer T Anger; A Lenore Ackerman
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 1.932

Review 5.  How does colpocleisis for pelvic organ prolapse in older women affect quality of life, body image, and sexuality? A critical review of the literature.

Authors:  Laetitia Felder; Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz; Tilemachos Kavvadias
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec

6.  Effect of Vaginal Mesh Hysteropexy vs Vaginal Hysterectomy With Uterosacral Ligament Suspension on Treatment Failure in Women With Uterovaginal Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Charles W Nager; Anthony G Visco; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Rebecca G Rogers; Heidi S Harvie; Halina M Zyczynski; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Scott Grey; Amaanti Sridhar; Dennis Wallace
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Effect of sacrospinous hysteropexy with graft vs vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension on treatment failure in women with uterovaginal prolapse: 5-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Charles W Nager; Anthony G Visco; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Yuko Komesu; Heidi S Harvie; Halina M Zyczynski; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Donna Mazloomdoost; Amaanti Sridhar; Sonia Thomas
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-03-12       Impact factor: 10.693

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.