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
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Urogynecology Journal
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 7/2020

01-07-2020 | Enterocele | Original Article

Addressing apical support during hysterectomy for prolapse: a NSQIP review

Authors: Austin M. Hill, Rachel N. Pauls, Catrina C. Crisp

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 7/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To describe national practice patterns regarding apical support procedures at time of hysterectomy for prolapse prior to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2017 Practice Bulletin on pelvic organ prolapse.

Methods

This retrospective descriptive study analyzed 24 months of data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, from 2015 and 2016. Patients undergoing hysterectomy for the indication of pelvic organ prolapse were included. Surgical details, diagnostic codes, subspecialty, patient demographics, and postoperative complications were collected. Comparisons were conducted between those who did and did not undergo apical support procedures. Further comparisons, including logistic regressions, were performed using subspecialty designation.

Results

During the study period, 3458 hysterectomies were performed for the indication of pelvic organ prolapse. Of this population, 76% were White, with an average age of 61 years, BMI of 27.6, and parity of 2, and 90.5% carried the diagnosis of apical prolapse. Slightly over half (51.8%) had a concurrent procedure to support the vaginal apex. When performed by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) physicians, 65.7% underwent an apical suspension at time of hysterectomy for prolapse compared with 40.2% of non-FPMRS (p < 0.001). Annual rates of apical support procedures showed significant improvement from 49.5% in 2015 to 55.2% in 2016 (P < 0.001). Regarding surgical data, addition of apical support procedures increased operative time by 33 min, and reoperation was 1.3% higher (0.3% vs 1.6%).

Conclusion

Our results demonstrate that in the 2 years prior to ACOG’s recommendation only 51.8% of women undergoing hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse received concurrent procedures to address apical support.
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.CrossRef
2.
Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(7):1496–501 discussion 501–3.
3.
Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.CrossRef
4.
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
5.
DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992;166(6 Pt 1):1717–24 discussion 24–8.
6.
Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, Hsu Y, DeLancey JO. Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2006;108(2):324–32.CrossRef
7.
Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A, Wu N, Pashos CL, Clemens JQ, et al. Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female Medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):981–7.CrossRef
8.
Shull BL. Pelvic organ prolapse: anterior, superior, and posterior vaginal segment defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(1):6–11.CrossRef
9.
Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(5):1533–8.CrossRef
10.
Cruikshank SH, Kovac SR. Randomized comparison of three surgical methods used at the time of vaginal hysterectomy to prevent posterior enterocele. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(4):859–65.CrossRef
11.
Dallenbach P. To mesh or not to mesh: a review of pelvic organ reconstructive surgery. Int J Women's Health. 2015;7:331–43.CrossRef
12.
Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24.CrossRef
13.
Barber MD, Brubaker L, Burgio KL, Richter HE, Nygaard I, Weidner AC, et al. Comparison of 2 transvaginal surgical approaches and perioperative behavioral therapy for apical vaginal prolapse: the OPTIMAL randomized trial. JAMA. 2014;311(10):1023–34.CrossRef
14.
Larson KA, Smith T, Berger MB, Abernethy M, Mead S, Fenner DE, et al. Long-term patient satisfaction with Michigan four-wall sacrospinous ligament suspension for prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):967–75.CrossRef
15.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6.CrossRef
16.
Practice Bulletin No. 185 Summary: Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):1170–2.
17.
Shiloach M, Frencher SK Jr, Steeger JE, Rowell KS, Bartzokis K, Tomeh MG, et al. Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(1):6–16.CrossRef
18.
Daley J, Forbes MG, Young GJ, Charns MP, Gibbs JO, Hur K, et al. Validating risk-adjusted surgical outcomes: site visit assessment of process and structure. National VA surgical risk study. J Am Coll Surg. 1997;185(4):341–51.PubMed
19.
Khuri SF, Henderson WG, Daley J, Jonasson O, Jones RS, Campbell DA Jr, et al. The patient safety in surgery study: background, study design, and patient populations. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;204(6):1089–102.CrossRef
20.
Khuri SF, Henderson WG, Daley J, Jonasson O, Jones RS, Campbell DA Jr, et al. Successful implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in the private sector: the patient safety in surgery study. Ann Surg. 2008;248(2):329–36.CrossRef
21.
Steinberg SM, Popa MR, Michalek JA, Bethel MJ, Ellison EC. Comparison of risk adjustment methodologies in surgical quality improvement. Surgery. 2008;144(4):662–7 discussion -7.CrossRef
22.
Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER, FitzGerald MP, Brubaker L. Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195(6):1837–40.CrossRef
23.
Lowder JL, Park AJ, Ellison R, Ghetti C, Moalli P, Zyczynski H, et al. The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):152–7.CrossRef
24.
Northington GM, Hudson CO, Karp DR, Huber SA. Concomitant apical suspensory procedures in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse in the United States in 2011. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):613–9.CrossRef
25.
Adams-Piper ER, Guaderrama NM, Chen Q, Whitcomb EL. Impact of surgical training on the performance of proposed quality measures for hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(6):588 e1–5.CrossRef
26.
Fairchild PS, Kamdar NS, Berger MB, Morgan DM. Rates of colpopexy and colporrhaphy at the time of hysterectomy for prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(2):262 e1–7.CrossRef
27.
Morgan DM, Pulliam S, Adam RA, Swenson C, Guire K, Kamdar N, et al. Analysis of high-, intermediate-, and low-volume surgeons when performing hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2016;22(1):43–50.CrossRef
28.
Ross WT, Meister MR, Shepherd JP, Olsen MA, Lowder JL. Utilization of apical vaginal support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy performed for benign conditions: a national estimate. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(4):436 e1–8.CrossRef
29.
Yurteri-Kaplan LA, Mete MM, St Clair C, Iglesia CB. Practice patterns of general gynecologic surgeons versus gynecologic subspecialists for concomitant apical suspension during vaginal hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. South Med J. 2015;108(1):17–22.CrossRef
30.
Kantartzis KL, Turner LC, Shepherd JP, Wang L, Winger DG, Lowder JL. Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(2):207–12.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Addressing apical support during hysterectomy for prolapse: a NSQIP review
Authors
Austin M. Hill
Rachel N. Pauls
Catrina C. Crisp
Publication date
01-07-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 7/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04281-w

Other articles of this Issue 7/2020

International Urogynecology Journal 7/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

Levator ani muscle (LAM) anatomical volume compared to age and body mass index (BMI) of patients

Commentary

Commentary on “The role of conventional pelvic floor reconstructive surgeries in obstructed defecation symptoms change: CARE and OPTIMAL trials sub-analysis of 2-year follow-up data”

Original Article

The use of tomographic ultrasound imaging on three-dimensional translabial ultrasound: a diagnostic sign for urethral diverticulum

Original Article

Cost-effectiveness of a preoperative pelvic MRI in pelvic organ prolapse surgery

Original Article

Impact of postoperative instructions on physical activity following pelvic reconstructive surgery: a randomized controlled trial

Original Article

Workup and conservative management of ileal conduit-vaginal fistulas: review of literature