OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of hysterectomy at the time of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair with the risk of undergoing subsequent POP surgery in a large population-based cohort. METHODS: Data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development were used in this retrospective cohort study to identify all women who underwent an anterior, apical, posterior or multiple compartment POP repair at nonfederal hospitals between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision procedure codes. Women with a diagnosis code indicating prior hysterectomy were excluded, and the first prolapse surgery during the study period was considered the index repair. Demographic and surgical characteristics were explored for associations with the primary outcome of a repeat POP surgery. We compared reoperation rates for recurrent POP between patients who did compared with those who did not have a hysterectomy at the time of their index POP repair. RESULTS: Of the 93,831 women meeting inclusion criteria, 42,340 (45.1%) underwent hysterectomy with index POP repair. Forty-eight percent of index repairs involved multiple compartments, 14.0% included mesh, and 48.9% included an incontinence procedure. Mean follow-up was 1,485 days (median 1,500 days). The repeat POP surgery rate was lower in those patients in whom hysterectomy was performed at the time of index POP repair, 3.0% vs 4.4% (relative risk [RR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.71). Multivariate modeling revealed that hysterectomy was associated with a decreased risk of future surgery for anterior (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.78), apical (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.84), and posterior (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.75) POP recurrence. The hysterectomy group had increased lengths of hospital stay (mean 2.2 days vs 1.8 days, mean difference 0.40, 95% CI 0.38-0.43), rates of blood transfusion (2.5% vs 1.5, RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.47-1.78), rates of perioperative hemorrhage (1.5% vs 1.1%, RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18-1.49), rates of urologic injury or fistula (0.9% vs 0.6%, RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.42-1.93), rates of infection or sepsis (0.9% vs 0.4%, RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.79-2.52), and rate of readmission for an infectious etiology (0.7% vs 0.3%, RR 2.54, 95% CI 2.08-3.10) as compared with those who did not undergo hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate in a large population-based cohort that hysterectomy at the time of prolapse repair is associated with a decreased risk of future POP surgery by 1-3% and is independently associated with higher perioperative morbidity. Individualized risks and benefits should be included in the discussion of POP surgery.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of hysterectomy at the time of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair with the risk of undergoing subsequent POP surgery in a large population-based cohort. METHODS: Data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development were used in this retrospective cohort study to identify all women who underwent an anterior, apical, posterior or multiple compartment POP repair at nonfederal hospitals between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision procedure codes. Women with a diagnosis code indicating prior hysterectomy were excluded, and the first prolapse surgery during the study period was considered the index repair. Demographic and surgical characteristics were explored for associations with the primary outcome of a repeat POP surgery. We compared reoperation rates for recurrent POP between patients who did compared with those who did not have a hysterectomy at the time of their index POP repair. RESULTS: Of the 93,831 women meeting inclusion criteria, 42,340 (45.1%) underwent hysterectomy with index POP repair. Forty-eight percent of index repairs involved multiple compartments, 14.0% included mesh, and 48.9% included an incontinence procedure. Mean follow-up was 1,485 days (median 1,500 days). The repeat POP surgery rate was lower in those patients in whom hysterectomy was performed at the time of index POP repair, 3.0% vs 4.4% (relative risk [RR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.62-0.71). Multivariate modeling revealed that hysterectomy was associated with a decreased risk of future surgery for anterior (odds ratio [OR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.64-0.78), apical (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.84), and posterior (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.65-0.75) POP recurrence. The hysterectomy group had increased lengths of hospital stay (mean 2.2 days vs 1.8 days, mean difference 0.40, 95% CI 0.38-0.43), rates of blood transfusion (2.5% vs 1.5, RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.47-1.78), rates of perioperative hemorrhage (1.5% vs 1.1%, RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.18-1.49), rates of urologic injury or fistula (0.9% vs 0.6%, RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.42-1.93), rates of infection or sepsis (0.9% vs 0.4%, RR 2.12, 95% CI 1.79-2.52), and rate of readmission for an infectious etiology (0.7% vs 0.3%, RR 2.54, 95% CI 2.08-3.10) as compared with those who did not undergo hysterectomy. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate in a large population-based cohort that hysterectomy at the time of prolapse repair is associated with a decreased risk of future POP surgery by 1-3% and is independently associated with higher perioperative morbidity. Individualized risks and benefits should be included in the discussion of POP surgery.
Authors: Alexandra Dubinskaya; Diego Hernandez-Aranda; Dorothy B Wakefield; Jonathan P Shepherd Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-06-29 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: C Emi Bretschneider; Charles D Scales; Oyomoare Osazuwa-Peters; David Sheyn; Vivian Sung Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-06-04 Impact factor: 1.932