Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 11/2018

01-11-2018 | Original Article

Trends in prolapse surgery in England

Authors: Martino Maria Zacche, Sambit Mukhopadhyay, Ilias Giarenis

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 11/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Women have a lifetime risk of undergoing pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery of 11–19%. Traditional native tissue repairs are associated with reoperation rates of approximately 11% after 20 years. Surgery with mesh augmentation was introduced to improve anatomic outcomes. However, the use of synthetic meshes in urogynaecological procedures has been scrutinised by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by the European Commission (SCENIHR). We aimed to review trends in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery in England.

Methods

Data were collected from the national hospital episode statistics database. Procedure and interventions-4 character tables were used to quantify POP operations. Annual reports from 2005 to 2016 were considered.

Results

The total number of POP procedures increased from 2005, reaching a peak in 2014 (N = 29,228). With regard to vaginal prolapse, native tissue repairs represented more than 90% of the procedures, whereas surgical meshes were considered in a few selected cases. The number of sacrospinous ligament fixations (SSLFs) grew more than 3 times over the years, whereas sacrocolpopexy remained stable. To treat vault prolapse, transvaginal surgical meshes have been progressively abandoned. We also noted a steady increase in uterine-sparing, and obliterative procedures.

Conclusions

Following FDA and SCENIHR warnings, a positive trend for meshes has only been seen in uterine-sparing surgery. Native tissue repairs constitute the vast majority of POP operations. SSLFs have been increasingly performed to achieve apical support. Urogynaecologists’ training should take into account shifts in surgical practice.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Handa VL, Garrett E, Hendrix S, Gold E, Robbins J. Progression and remission of pelvic organ prolapse: a longitudinal study of menopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(1):27–32.CrossRef Handa VL, Garrett E, Hendrix S, Gold E, Robbins J. Progression and remission of pelvic organ prolapse: a longitudinal study of menopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190(1):27–32.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.CrossRef Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Lowenstein E, Moller LA, Laigaard J, Gimbel H. Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse: a Danish cohort study with 15–20 years' follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):119–24.CrossRef Lowenstein E, Moller LA, Laigaard J, Gimbel H. Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse: a Danish cohort study with 15–20 years' follow-up. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):119–24.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014.
5.
go back to reference Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD004014.PubMed Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD004014.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Gutman RE. Does the uterus need to be removed to correct uterovaginal prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28(5):435–40.CrossRef Gutman RE. Does the uterus need to be removed to correct uterovaginal prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28(5):435–40.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Jha S, Cutner A, Moran P. The UK National Prolapse Survey: 10 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;29(6):795–801.CrossRef Jha S, Cutner A, Moran P. The UK National Prolapse Survey: 10 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;29(6):795–801.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Ziprin P, et al. Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012;34(1):138–48.CrossRef Burns EM, Rigby E, Mamidanna R, Bottle A, Aylin P, Ziprin P, et al. Systematic review of discharge coding accuracy. J Public Health (Oxf). 2012;34(1):138–48.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Withington J, Hirji S, Sahai A. The changing face of urinary continence surgery in England: a perspective from the hospital episode statistics database. BJU Int. 2014;114(2):268–77.CrossRef Withington J, Hirji S, Sahai A. The changing face of urinary continence surgery in England: a perspective from the hospital episode statistics database. BJU Int. 2014;114(2):268–77.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Gibson W, Wagg A. Are older women more likely to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence since the introduction of the mid-urethral sling? An examination of hospital episode statistics data. BJOG. 2016;123(8):1386–92.CrossRef Gibson W, Wagg A. Are older women more likely to receive surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence since the introduction of the mid-urethral sling? An examination of hospital episode statistics data. BJOG. 2016;123(8):1386–92.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mascarenhas T, Mascarenhas-Saraiva M Jr, Ricon-Ferraz A, Nogueira P, Lopes F, Freitas A. Pelvic organ prolapse surgical management in Portugal and FDA safety communication have an impact on vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):113–22.CrossRef Mascarenhas T, Mascarenhas-Saraiva M Jr, Ricon-Ferraz A, Nogueira P, Lopes F, Freitas A. Pelvic organ prolapse surgical management in Portugal and FDA safety communication have an impact on vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(1):113–22.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Kurkijarvi K, Aaltonen R, Gissler M, Makinen J. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Finland from 1987 to 2009: a national register based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;214:71–7.CrossRef Kurkijarvi K, Aaltonen R, Gissler M, Makinen J. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Finland from 1987 to 2009: a national register based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;214:71–7.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Skoczylas LC, Turner LC, Wang L, Winger DG, Shepherd JP. Changes in prolapse surgery trends relative to FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):471–7.CrossRef Skoczylas LC, Turner LC, Wang L, Winger DG, Shepherd JP. Changes in prolapse surgery trends relative to FDA notifications regarding vaginal mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):471–7.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Younger A, Rac G, Clemens JQ, Kobashi K, Khan A, Nitti V, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in academic female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery urology practice in the setting of the food and drug administration public health notifications. Urology. 2016;91:46–51.CrossRef Younger A, Rac G, Clemens JQ, Kobashi K, Khan A, Nitti V, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in academic female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery urology practice in the setting of the food and drug administration public health notifications. Urology. 2016;91:46–51.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Notten KJ, Essers BA, Weemhoff M, Rutten AG, Donners JJ, van Gestel I, et al. Do patients prefer mesh or anterior colporrhaphy for primary correction of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a labelled discrete choice experiment. BJOG. 2015;122(6):873–80.CrossRef Notten KJ, Essers BA, Weemhoff M, Rutten AG, Donners JJ, van Gestel I, et al. Do patients prefer mesh or anterior colporrhaphy for primary correction of anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a labelled discrete choice experiment. BJOG. 2015;122(6):873–80.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(6 Pt 1):1717–24. discussion 24–8CrossRef DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(6 Pt 1):1717–24. discussion 24–8CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Paz-Levy D, Yohay D, Neymeyer J, Hizkiyahu R, Weintraub AY. Native tissue repair for central compartment prolapse: a narrative review. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(2):181–9.CrossRef Paz-Levy D, Yohay D, Neymeyer J, Hizkiyahu R, Weintraub AY. Native tissue repair for central compartment prolapse: a narrative review. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(2):181–9.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mowat A, Wong V, Goh J, Krause H, Pelecanos A, Higgs P. A descriptive study on the efficacy and complications of the Capio (Boston Scientific) suturing device for sacrospinous ligament fixation. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;58(1):119–24.CrossRef Mowat A, Wong V, Goh J, Krause H, Pelecanos A, Higgs P. A descriptive study on the efficacy and complications of the Capio (Boston Scientific) suturing device for sacrospinous ligament fixation. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018;58(1):119–24.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278–83.CrossRef Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278–83.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):470.e1–6.CrossRef Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, Richardson ML, Book NM, Yip S, et al. Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(5):470.e1–6.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717.CrossRef Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ. 2015;351:h3717.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Moen MD, Richter HE. Vaginal hysterectomy: past, present, and future. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1161–5.CrossRef Moen MD, Richter HE. Vaginal hysterectomy: past, present, and future. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(9):1161–5.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Trends in prolapse surgery in England
Authors
Martino Maria Zacche
Sambit Mukhopadhyay
Ilias Giarenis
Publication date
01-11-2018
Publisher
Springer London
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 11/2018
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3731-2

Other articles of this Issue 11/2018

International Urogynecology Journal 11/2018 Go to the issue