Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 9/2020

01-09-2020 | Incontinence Surgery | Original Article

Time-frame comparison of hystero-preservation in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: a population-based nation-wide follow-up descriptive study, 2006–2013 versus 1997–2005

Authors: Yi-Lun Lin, Tsia-Shu Lo, Cheng-Yu Long, Kim-Seng Law, Chung-Han Ho, Ming-Ping Wu

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 9/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The purpose of our study was to describe the surgical trend and time-frame comparison between 1997–2005 (1stperiod) and 2006–2013 (2nd period) of hystero-preservation for uterine prolapse, based upon a nationwide population-based National Health Insurance (NHI) claim data in Taiwan.

Methods

Women, who underwent primary surgeries for uterine prolapse, either uterine suspension with hystero-preservation or hysterectomy during 1997–2013, were identified from National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD).We analyzed the related variables including surgical types (hystero-preservation or hysterectomy), patient age and concomitant anti-incontinence surgery, surgeon age, gender, and service volume; and hospital accreditation level, and service volume.

Results

We identified a total of 46,968 inpatients, 6629 (14.11%) hystero-preservation group, and 40,339 (85.89%) hysterectomy group. Hystero-preservation significantly increased during the 17 year follow-up study period (1997 to 2013) (P value =0.0147). The overall surgeries for uterine prolapse increased among patients ≥70 years, with concomitant anti-incontinence surgery, surgeons ≥45 years, high volume surgeons, and hospitals. Multiple logistic regression revealed hysterectomy was less used in 2nd period (OR 0.45, 95%, confidence interval (CI) 0.43–0.48). Hysterectomy was more often used in patient aged ≥50 years, surgeon aged ≥45 years, and low volume hospitals. In case of concomitant anti-incontinence surgery (OR 0.48, CI 0.45–0.52), high volume surgeons (more than 30 surgeries) and hospitals (more than 73 surgeries) hystero-preservation was more often used.

Conclusions

Time-frames, younger patients, concomitant anti-incontinence surgery, younger surgeons, and high volume surgeons and hospitals increase hystero-preservation for uterine prolapse. Surgeons and hospitals should be ready to respond to the wishes of female patients who want to preserve the uterus.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A. Pelvic organ prolapse in the women's health initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1160–6.PubMedCrossRef
2.
de Oliveira SA, Fonseca MCM, Bortolini MAT, Girao M, Roque MT, Castro RA. Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(11):1617–30.PubMedCrossRef
3.
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.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Swift SE, Tate SB, Nicholas J. Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189:372–7.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(6):1201–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
6.
Blandon RE, Bharucha AE, Melton LJ 3rd, et al. Incidence of pelvic floor repair after hysterectomy: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197(6):664 e1–7.CrossRef
7.
Wu MP, Long CY, Huang KH, Chu CC, Liang CC, Tang CH. Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: an 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(7):865–72.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Wu MP, Wu CJ, Weng SF. The choice of reoperation after primary surgeries for uterine prolapse: a nationwide study. Gynecol Minim Invasive Ther. 2015;4(4):120–5.CrossRef
9.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with anterior compartment prolapse. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;11:CD004014.PubMed
10.
Anglim B, O'Sullivan O, O'Reilly B. How do patients and surgeons decide on uterine preservation or hysterectomy in apical prolapse? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(8):1075–9.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Huang LY, Chu LC, Chiang HJ, Chuang FC, Kung FT, Huang KH. Medium-term comparison of uterus preservation versus hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse treatment with Prolift mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(7):1013–20.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Komisaruk BR, Frangos E, Whipple B. Hysterectomy improves sexual response? Addressing a crucial omission in the literature. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011;18(3):288–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
Kow N, Goldman HB, Ridgeway B. Management options for women with uterine prolapse interested in uterine preservation. Current urology reports. 2013;14(5):395–402.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Samuelsson EC, Victor FT, Tibblin G, Svardsudd KF. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(2 Pt 1):299–305.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Mowat A, Maher C, Ballard E. Surgical outcomes for low-volume vs high-volume surgeons in gynecology surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(1):21–33.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Bedford ND, Seman EI, O'Shea RT, Keirse MJ. Effect of uterine preservation on outcome of laparoscopic uterosacral suspension. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2013;20(2):172–7.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Glazener CM, Breeman S, Elders A, et al. Mesh, graft, or standard repair for women having primary transvaginal anterior or posterior compartment prolapse surgery: two parallel-group, multicentre, randomised, controlled trials (PROSPECT). Lancet. 2017;389(10067):381–92.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zucchi A, Lazzeri M, Porena M, Mearini L, Costantini E. Uterus preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7(11):626–33.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery. 2013;19(2):103–9.CrossRef
20.
Wu MP, Long CY, Liang CC, Weng SF, Tong YC. Trends in reoperation for female stress urinary incontinence: a nationwide study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015;34(7):693–8.PubMedCrossRef
21.
van IJsselmuiden NM, Detollenaere RJ, et al. Dutch women's attitudes towards hysterectomy and uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;220:79–83.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Khan AA, Eilber KS, Clemens JQ, Wu N, Pashos CL, Anger JT. Trends in management of pelvic organ prolapse among female Medicare beneficiaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(4):463 e1–8.CrossRef
23.
24.
25.
Korbly NB, Kassis NC, Good MM, 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
26.
Costantini E, Porena M, Lazzeri M, Mearini L, Bini V, Zucchi A. Changes in female sexual function after pelvic organ prolapse repair: role of hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(9):1481–7.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Altman D, Granath F, Cnattingius S, Falconer C. Hysterectomy and risk of stress-urinary-incontinence surgery: nationwide cohort study. Lancet. 2007;370(9597):1494–9.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Richter HE, et al. Two-year outcomes after sacrocolpopexy with and without burch to prevent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(1):49–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Anger JT, Rodriguez LV, Wang Q, Pashos CL, Litwin MS. The role of provider volume on outcomes after sling surgery for stress urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2007;177(4):1457–62.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Healy MA, Mullard AJ, Campbell DA Jr, Dimick JB. Hospital and payer costs associated with surgical complications. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(9):823–30.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Time-frame comparison of hystero-preservation in the surgical treatment of uterine prolapse: a population-based nation-wide follow-up descriptive study, 2006–2013 versus 1997–2005
Authors
Yi-Lun Lin
Tsia-Shu Lo
Cheng-Yu Long
Kim-Seng Law
Chung-Han Ho
Ming-Ping Wu
Publication date
01-09-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 9/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04128-z

Other articles of this Issue 9/2020

International Urogynecology Journal 9/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

A comparison of antibiotic prophylaxis regimens to decrease the risk of post-procedure urinary tract infection after onabotulinum toxin A injection

Original Article

Age-associated differences in macrophage response in a vaginal wound healing rat model

Original Article

Long-term pelvic organ prolapse recurrence and mesh exposure following sacrocolpopexy

Original Article

The Fibromyalgia Bladder Index in 100 consecutive women with fibromyalgia

Original Article

The effect of replacing vacuum with forceps in operative vaginal delivery: an observational study

Commentary

Commentary on “Lightweight transvaginal mesh is associated with lower mesh exposure rates than heavyweight mesh” by Dykes et al.