Published in:
01-11-2013 | Original Article
Comparative outcomes of open versus laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy among medicare beneficiaries
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 11/2013
Login to get accessAbstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Since the first reported laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy in 1991, a limited number of single-center studies have attempted to assess the procedure’s effectiveness and safety. Therefore, we analyzed a national Medicare database to compare real-world short-term outcomes of open and laparoscopically assisted (including robotic) sacrocolpopexy in a United States sample of patients.
Methods
Public Use File data for a 5 % random national sample of all Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the years 2004–2008. Women with pelvic organ prolapse were identified using ICD-9 diagnosis codes. CPT-4 procedure codes were used to identify women who underwent open (code 57280) or laparoscopic (code 57425) sacrocolpopexy. Individual subjects were followed for 1 year post-operatively. Outcomes measured, using ICD-9 and CPT-4 codes, included medical and surgical complications and re-operation rates.
Results
Seven hundred and ninety-four women underwent open and 176 underwent laparoscopic (including robotic) sacrocolpopexy. Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy was associated with a significantly increased rate of re-operation for anterior vaginal wall prolapse (3.4 % vs 1.0 %, p = 0.018). However, more medical (primarily cardiopulmonary) complications occurred post-operatively in the open group (31.5 % vs 22.7 %, p = 0.023). When sacrocolpopexy was performed with concomitant hysterectomy, mesh-related complications were significantly higher in the laparoscopic group (5.4 % vs 0 %, p = 0.026).
Conclusion
Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy resulted in an increased rate of reoperation for prolapse in the anterior compartment. When hysterectomy was performed at the time of sacrocolpopexy, the laparoscopic approach was associated with an increased risk of mesh-related complications.