Cristina B Geltzeiler1, Elisa H Birnbaum2, Matthew L Silviera3, Matthew G Mutch4, Joel Vetter4, Paul E Wise4, Steven R Hunt4, Sean C Glasgow4. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics, K3/704 Clinical Science Center, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI, 53792-7375, USA. geltzeiler@surgery.wisc.edu. 2. Department of Surgery, Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Section of Colon and Rectal Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. 4. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pelvic floor abnormalities often affect multiple organs. The incidence of concomitant uterine/vaginal prolapse with rectal prolapse is at least 38%. For these patients, addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy may be appropriate. Our aim was to determine if addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy increases the procedural morbidity over rectopexy alone. METHODS: We utilized the ACS-NSQIP database to examine female patients who underwent rectopexy from 2005 to 2014. We compared patients who had a combined procedure (sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy) to those who had rectopexy alone. Thirty-day morbidity was compared and a multivariable model constructed to determine predictors of complications. RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred patients underwent rectopexy; 3394 had rectopexy alone while 206 underwent a combined procedure with the addition of sacrocolpopexy. Use of the combined procedure increased significantly from 2.6 to 7.7%. Overall morbidity did not differ between groups (14.8% rectopexy alone vs. 13.6% combined procedure, p = 0.65). Significant predictors of morbidity included addition of resection to a rectopexy procedure, elevated BMI, smoking, wound class, and ASA class. After controlling for these and other patient factors, the addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy did not increase overall morbidity (OR 1.00, p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in operative morbidity when adding sacrocolpopexy to a rectopexy procedure. Despite a modest increase in utilization of combined procedures over time, the overall rate remains low. These findings support the practice of multidisciplinary evaluation of patients presenting with rectal prolapse, with the goal of offering concurrent surgical correction for all compartments affected by pelvic organ prolapse disorders.
PURPOSE:Pelvic floor abnormalities often affect multiple organs. The incidence of concomitant uterine/vaginal prolapse with rectal prolapse is at least 38%. For these patients, addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy may be appropriate. Our aim was to determine if addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy increases the procedural morbidity over rectopexy alone. METHODS: We utilized the ACS-NSQIP database to examine female patients who underwent rectopexy from 2005 to 2014. We compared patients who had a combined procedure (sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy) to those who had rectopexy alone. Thirty-day morbidity was compared and a multivariable model constructed to determine predictors of complications. RESULTS: Three thousand six hundred patients underwent rectopexy; 3394 had rectopexy alone while 206 underwent a combined procedure with the addition of sacrocolpopexy. Use of the combined procedure increased significantly from 2.6 to 7.7%. Overall morbidity did not differ between groups (14.8% rectopexy alone vs. 13.6% combined procedure, p = 0.65). Significant predictors of morbidity included addition of resection to a rectopexy procedure, elevated BMI, smoking, wound class, and ASA class. After controlling for these and other patient factors, the addition of sacrocolpopexy to rectopexy did not increase overall morbidity (OR 1.00, p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: There is no difference in operative morbidity when adding sacrocolpopexy to a rectopexy procedure. Despite a modest increase in utilization of combined procedures over time, the overall rate remains low. These findings support the practice of multidisciplinary evaluation of patients presenting with rectal prolapse, with the goal of offering concurrent surgical correction for all compartments affected by pelvic organ prolapse disorders.
Entities:
Keywords:
Pelvic floor; Pelvic organ prolapse; Rectal prolapse; Rectopexy; Sacrocolpopexy
Authors: Yusuke Watadani; Sarah A Vogler; Jeffrey S Warshaw; Taijiro Sueda; Ann C Lowry; Robert D Madoff; Anders Mellgren Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Sophie Warembourg; Majd Labaki; Renaud de Tayrac; Pierre Costa; Brigitte Fatton Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jan J van Iersel; Chris J de Witte; Paul M Verheijen; Ivo A M J Broeders; Egbert Lenters; Esther C J Consten; Steven E Schraffordt Koops Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Cara L Grimes; Emily S Lukacz; Marie G Gantz; Lauren Klein Warren; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Holly E Richter; J Eric Jelovsek; Geoffrey Cundiff; Paul Fine; Anthony G Visco; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2014 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Cecile A Unger; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; John E Jelovsek; Matthew D Barber; Beri Ridgeway Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 8.661
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