INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to compare surgical outcomes after prior hysterectomy versus concomitant hysterectomy with laparoscopic/robotic minimally invasive sacral colpopexy (MISC). METHODS: Using all MISC from 2009 to 2014, patient sociodemographic and surgical data were compared between MISC with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy. Operative time (skin incision to closure) was compared with linear regression. Logistic regression compared complications, a composite variable including ≥1 transfusion, infection, readmission, reoperation, bowel obstruction/ileus, conversion to laparotomy, bowel/bladder injury, or mesh complication. Logistic regression compared prolapse recurrence defined as retreatment (pessary/surgery) or postoperative POP-Q points ≥ 0. RESULTS: Eight hundred and sixteen patients were 59.6 ± 8.7 years old and predominantly Caucasians (97.8%), with BMI 27.4 ± 4.5 and predominantly POP-Q stage III prolapse (69.9%). Operative time was 205.0 ± 69.0 min. Concomitant hysterectomy increased operative time 17.8 min (p = 0.004) adjusting for age, POP-Q stage, total vaginal length, perineal body, lysis of adhesions or perineorrhaphy, changes in operating personnel (scrub tech/circulating nurse), case order during the day, and preoperative stress incontinence. Complications occurred in 15.8% and were more likely with prior hysterectomy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.43-3.70) adjusting for preoperative genital hiatus and perineal body, concomitant midurethral sling, obesity, and immunosuppression. During a follow-up of 31 weeks, 7.8% had prolapse recurrence with no impact from concomitant hysterectomy (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.41-2.24). Post-hoc power calculation would have required an unattainable size of >2,800 per group for this outcome. CONCLUSIONS: For MISC, concomitant hysterectomy is associated with longer operative time but lower risk of complications. There was no impact of concomitant hysterectomy on prolapse recurrence, but longer follow-up may be needed for this outcome.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to compare surgical outcomes after prior hysterectomy versus concomitant hysterectomy with laparoscopic/robotic minimally invasive sacral colpopexy (MISC). METHODS: Using all MISC from 2009 to 2014, patient sociodemographic and surgical data were compared between MISC with prior versus concomitant hysterectomy. Operative time (skin incision to closure) was compared with linear regression. Logistic regression compared complications, a composite variable including ≥1 transfusion, infection, readmission, reoperation, bowel obstruction/ileus, conversion to laparotomy, bowel/bladder injury, or mesh complication. Logistic regression compared prolapse recurrence defined as retreatment (pessary/surgery) or postoperative POP-Q points ≥ 0. RESULTS: Eight hundred and sixteen patients were 59.6 ± 8.7 years old and predominantly Caucasians (97.8%), with BMI 27.4 ± 4.5 and predominantly POP-Q stage III prolapse (69.9%). Operative time was 205.0 ± 69.0 min. Concomitant hysterectomy increased operative time 17.8 min (p = 0.004) adjusting for age, POP-Q stage, total vaginal length, perineal body, lysis of adhesions or perineorrhaphy, changes in operating personnel (scrub tech/circulating nurse), case order during the day, and preoperative stress incontinence. Complications occurred in 15.8% and were more likely with prior hysterectomy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.43-3.70) adjusting for preoperative genital hiatus and perineal body, concomitant midurethral sling, obesity, and immunosuppression. During a follow-up of 31 weeks, 7.8% had prolapse recurrence with no impact from concomitant hysterectomy (OR = 0.96, 95% CI 0.41-2.24). Post-hoc power calculation would have required an unattainable size of >2,800 per group for this outcome. CONCLUSIONS: For MISC, concomitant hysterectomy is associated with longer operative time but lower risk of complications. There was no impact of concomitant hysterectomy on prolapse recurrence, but longer follow-up may be needed for this outcome.
Authors: Holly E Richter; Michael E Albo; Halina M Zyczynski; Kimberly Kenton; Peggy A Norton; Larry T Sirls; Stephen R Kraus; Toby C Chai; Gary E Lemack; Kimberly J Dandreo; R Edward Varner; Shawn Menefee; Chiara Ghetti; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Salil Khandwala; Thomas A Rozanski; Harry Johnson; Joseph Schaffer; Anne M Stoddard; Robert L Holley; Charles W Nager; Pamela Moalli; Elizabeth Mueller; Amy M Arisco; Marlene Corton; Sharon Tennstedt; T Debuene Chang; E Ann Gormley; Heather J Litman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Charles W Nager; Halina Zyczynski; Rebecca G Rogers; Matthew D Barber; Holly E Richter; Anthony G Visco; Charles R Rardin; Heidi Harvie; Dennis Wallace; Susan F Meikle Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Ingrid Nygaard; Alison C Weidner; Shawn A Menefee; Emily S Lukacz; Peggy Norton; Joseph Schaffer; John N Nguyen; Diane Borello-France; Patricia S Goode; Sharon Jakus-Waldman; Cathie Spino; Lauren Klein Warren; Marie G Gantz; Susan F Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kevin J Stepp; Matthew D Barber; Eun-Hee Yoo; James L Whiteside; Marie Fidela R Paraiso; Mark D Walters Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Lauren E Giugale; Sarah Sears; Erin S Lavelle; Charelle M Carter-Brooks; Michael Bonidie; Jonathan P Shepherd Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2017 Sep/Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Geoffrey Cundiff; Holly Richter; Marie Gantz; Paul Fine; Shawn Menefee; Beri Ridgeway; Anthony Visco; Lauren Klein Warren; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Michael A Liss; Douglas Skarecky; Blanca Morales; Kathryn Osann; Louis Eichel; Thomas E Ahlering Journal: Urology Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 2.649