Concomitant apical suspensory procedures in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse in the United States in 2011

Trends in Apical Suspension at the Time of Hysterectomy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Impact of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Recommendations

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to compare national surgical practice patterns of performing apical suspension procedures (ASPs) at the time of hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) before and after the publication of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2017 Practice Bulletin on POP.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for hysterectomy cases performed for POP indications for the years 2015-2016 and 2018-2019. The primary outcome was the use of ASP at the time of hysterectomy for POP. Secondary outcomes included the use of anterior, posterior, and paravaginal prolapse repair procedures. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with performing a hysterectomy without an ASP.

RESULTS

A total of 11,336 cases were included, and apical prolapse was the primary POP diagnosis in 86.3% of these cases. There was no statistically significant change in the utilization of ASPs in 2018-2019 compared with 2015-2016 (51.4% vs 49.8%, P = 0.081). Urogynecologists were significantly more likely than general gynecologists to perform ASPs (65.6% vs 37.5%, P < 0.001), which was confirmed on multivariable logistic regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 3.257; P < 0.001). The use of concomitant anterior repairs (44.1% vs 39.5%, P < 0.001) and posterior repairs (47.5% vs 41.3%, P < 0.001) increased in the 2018-2019 cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no overall increase in the utilization of concomitant ASPs at the time of hysterectomy done for POP indications despite the 2017 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists practice bulletin. Urogynecologists were more likely to perform ASPs than general gynecologists.

Practice Patterns Regarding Apical Support Procedures at Time of Hysterectomy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse

OBJECTIVES

We sought to understand practice patterns of non-female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery (FPMRS) clinicians regarding concurrent apical support procedures during hysterectomies when primarily performed for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. We also sought to describe differences between those receiving and not receiving apical support.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed medical records of individuals undergoing hysterectomy for the primary indication of pelvic organ prolapse between 2012 and 2017 at all locations within the TriHealth system. Surgeries performed by board-certified FPMRS physicians were excluded. Comparisons were drawn between those who did and did not receive apical support.

RESULTS

A total of 236 charts met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 66 (28%) received concurrent apical suspension, and 94 (39.8%) underwent no reconstructive procedures. The annual proportion of those receiving apical suspension did not differ over the course of the study period. On average, the addition of apical support added 39.9 minutes (P < 0.001) to the length of surgery. There was, however, no difference noted in estimated blood loss. Risk factors for recurrent prolapse including chronic constipation, pulmonary disease, and connective tissue disorders were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

When excluding FPMRS surgeons, data from our institution showed that most patients undergoing hysterectomy for prolapse did not receive concurrent apical support. This suggests areas of potential improvement for adopting into clinical practice the new American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommendations regarding the treatment of prolapse. Furthermore, this may represent an important opportunity for peer outreach and education by FPMRS surgeons.

Addressing apical support during hysterectomy for prolapse: a NSQIP review

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.

Apical Suspension Utilization at the Time of Vaginal Hysterectomy for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Varies With Surgeon Specialty

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether utilization of apical suspension procedures at the time of vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse varies with surgeon specialty.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2014 to 2016. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification with a diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse who underwent vaginal hysterectomy with any combination of pelvic reconstructive procedures. Propensity score matching using available preoperative clinical data was used to ameliorate selection bias by specialty at a ratio of 1 female pelvic reconstructive surgeon (FPMRS) surgeon to 2 obstetrician-gynecologists (OBG). Descriptive statistics were reported as means with standard deviations. Pairwise analysis using Student t test and Fisher exact test was performed where appropriate.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there were 901 cases performed by FPMRS and 1802 performed by OBG. The overall utilization rate of apical suspension in the matched cohort was 81.7% for FPMRS and 19.8% for OBG (P < 0.001). Obstetrician-gynecologists were more likely to perform vaginal hysterectomy without apical suspension compared with FPMRS (44.3% vs 5.8%; P < 0.001) and were also more likely to perform nonapical vaginal repair without also performing an apical suspension, (17.7% vs 9.3%, P < 0.001), compared to urogynecologists. On multivariable logistic regression, having surgery performed by FPMRS was the only significant variable associated with an increased likelihood of undergoing apical suspension (adjusted odds ratio, 5.34; 95% confidence interval, 4.48-6.36).

CONCLUSIONS

The FPMRS physicians are more likely to perform apical suspension with vaginal hysterectomy for prolapse repair compared with OBG.

Do Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification Examination Ba and D Guide the Selection of Operation for Severe Pelvic Organ Prolapse?

Purpose: To determine whether the preoperative Ba and D point could help to guide the choice of surgical procedure for POP. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study included 250 subjects with anterior/apical defect from January 2012 to June 2015. All subjects underwent a complete preoperative evaluation and completed 12 months of follow-up. Based on the connection of preoperative Ba and D point of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q), patients were assigned two groups: 137 patients who underwent anterior vaginal repair with mesh (AVM) and 113 patients who underwent AVM combined with sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF). The primary outcomes were anatomical cure and recurrence rate of both procedures. Secondary outcomes were prolapse symptom, quality of life and sexual function based upon validated questionnaires. The complications were also recorded in both groups. Results: Both groups were homogeneous preoperatively. The anatomical success rates for the anterior, apical and posterior vaginal compartments were 99.2%, 97.0% and 97.7% in the AVM group, respectively. For patients who underwent AVM-SSLF, the anatomical success rates for the anterior, apical and posterior compartments were 96.1%, 98.1% and 98.1%, respectively. The recurrence for both techniques was low. Both procedures presented a significant improvement with regard to postoperative quality of life (QOL), prolapse symptoms, and sexual function after 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: The preoperative Ba and D point correlated with surgical choice for the treatment of anterior/apical prolapse, which further decided the surgical outcomes for prolapse support.

Utilization of apical vaginal support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy performed for benign conditions: a national estimate

BACKGROUND

Apical vaginal support is considered the keystone of pelvic organ support. Level I evidence supports reestablishment of apical support at time of hysterectomy, regardless of whether the hysterectomy is performed for prolapse. National rates of apical support procedure performance at time of inpatient hysterectomy have not been well described.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to estimate trends and factors associated with use of apical support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy for benign indications in a large national database.

STUDY DESIGN

The National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample was used to identify hysterectomies performed from 2004 through 2013 for benign indications. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to select both procedures and diagnoses. The primary outcome was performance of an apical support procedure at time of hysterectomy. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were performed.

RESULTS

There were 3,509,230 inpatient hysterectomies performed for benign disease from 2004 through 2013. In both nonprolapse and prolapse groups, there was a significant decrease in total number of annual hysterectomies performed over the study period (P < .0001). There were 2,790,652 (79.5%) hysterectomies performed without a diagnosis of prolapse, and an apical support procedure was performed in only 85,879 (3.1%). There was a significant decrease in the proportion of hysterectomies with concurrent apical support procedure (high of 4.0% in 2004 to 2.5% in 2013, P < .0001). In the multivariable logistic regression model, increasing age, hospital type (urban teaching), hospital bed size (large and medium), and hysterectomy type (vaginal and laparoscopically assisted vaginal) were associated with performance of an apical support procedure. During the study period, 718,578 (20.5%) inpatient hysterectomies were performed for prolapse diagnoses and 266,743 (37.1%) included an apical support procedure. There was a significant increase in the proportion of hysterectomies with concurrent apical support procedure (low of 31.3% in 2005 to 49.3% in 2013, P < .0001). In the multivariable logistic regression model, increasing age, hospital type (urban teaching), hospital bed size (medium and large), and hysterectomy type (total laparoscopic and laparoscopic supracervical) were associated with performance of an apical support procedure.

CONCLUSION

This national database study demonstrates that apical support procedures are not routinely performed at time of inpatient hysterectomy regardless of presence of prolapse diagnosis. Educational efforts are needed to increase awareness of the importance of reestablishing apical vaginal support at time of hysterectomy regardless of indication.

Surgical Updates in the Treatment of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse affects approximately 8% of women, and the demand for pelvic organ prolapse surgery is expected to increase by nearly 50% over the next 40 years. The surgical techniques used to correct pelvic organ prolapse have evolved over the last 10 years, with multiple well-designed studies addressing the risks, outcomes, reoperation rates, and optimal surgical approaches. Here we review the most recent evidence on the route of access, concomitant procedures, and synthetic materials for augmenting the repair. Ultimately, this review highlights that there is no optimal method for correcting pelvic organ prolapse and that the risks, benefits, and approaches should be discussed in a patient-centered, goal-oriented approach to decision-making.