Literature DB >> 32840658

Surgical approach and unplanned readmission following pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a retrospective cohort study using data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database (NSQIP).

Aisling A Clancy1,2, Innie Chen3,4,5, Dante Pascali3,4,5, Vatche A Minassian6,7.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: To define the reasons for hospital readmissions following surgery for pelvic organ prolapse by surgical approach.
METHODS: Patients undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse from 2012 to 2018 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes. Hazard risks of readmission by surgical approach (vaginal, laparoscopic, abdominal, or combined) were determined by multivariable cox regression. Diagnoses and timing of readmission by surgical approach were examined.
RESULTS: Of 57,233 women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse during the study period, 1073 (1.9%) were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days postoperatively. After adjusting for prespecified potential confounders, laparoscopic and abdominal surgical approaches were associated with higher risks of readmission relative to a vaginal approach (aHR 1.30, 95% CI 1.08-1.57, and 1.97, 95% CI 1.44-2.71, respectively). The most common reason for readmission was a gastrointestinal issue among those undergoing both laparoscopic (28.0%) and abdominal surgery (30.2%). Surgical site infection was the most common readmission diagnosis among women undergoing vaginal surgery (16.2%). Of the 418 women readmitted within 7 days of surgery, the most common diagnoses were gastrointestinal issues (26.6%), medical disorders (12.0%), or surgical complications (e.g., bleeding) (11.0%).
CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing laparoscopic or abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse were at higher risk of readmission relative to those undergoing surgery via a vaginal approach. The reasons and timing of readmission differed based on surgical approach.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Minimally invasive surgery; Pelvic organ prolapse; Readmission; Vaginal surgery

Year:  2020        PMID: 32840658     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04505-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  15 in total

1.  Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Authors:  Mira Shiloach; Stanley K Frencher; Janet E Steeger; Katherine S Rowell; Kristine Bartzokis; Majed G Tomeh; Karen E Richards; Clifford Y Ko; Bruce L Hall
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-11-22       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 2.  Lifetime risk of surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Maggie F Wilkins; Jennifer M Wu
Journal:  Minerva Ginecol       Date:  2016-12-21

3.  Recent trends in the management of pelvic organ prolapse in Australia and New Zealand.

Authors:  Brendan J Miller; Elvis I Seman; Robert T O'Shea; Paul H Hakendorf; Tran T T Nguyen
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2018-06-19       Impact factor: 2.100

4.  Trends in prolapse surgery in England.

Authors:  Martino Maria Zacche; Sambit Mukhopadhyay; Ilias Giarenis
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-08-04       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  False alarms and pseudo-epidemics: the limitations of observational epidemiology.

Authors:  David A Grimes; Kenneth F Schulz
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Timing of and Reasons for Unplanned 30-Day Readmission After Hysterectomy for Benign Disease.

Authors:  Courtney A Penn; Daniel M Morgan; Laurel W Rice; John A Harris; J Alejandro Rauh-Hain; Shitanshu Uppal
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Readmission After Gynecologic Surgery: A Comparison of Procedures for Benign and Malignant Indications.

Authors:  Lori Cory; Nawar Latif; Colleen Brensinger; Xiaochen Zhang; Robert L Giuntoli; Robert A Burger; Mark Morgan; Emily Ko
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Hysterectomy Route and Numbers Reported by Graduating Residents in Obstetrics and Gynecology Training Programs.

Authors:  Gregory M Gressel; John R Potts; Sandolsam Cha; Fidel A Valea; Erika Banks
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Variation in surgical-readmission rates and quality of hospital care.

Authors:  Thomas C Tsai; Karen E Joynt; E John Orav; Atul A Gawande; Ashish K Jha
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Association Between Concomitant Hysterectomy and Repeat Surgery for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair in a Cohort of Nearly 100,000 Women.

Authors:  Kai Dallas; Christopher S Elliott; Raveen Syan; Ericka Sohlberg; Ekene Enemchukwu; Lisa Rogo-Gupta
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 7.661

View more
  1 in total

1.  Adverse outcomes after minimally invasive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in women 65 years and older in the United States.

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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.