Please wait a minute...
Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology  2019, Vol. 46 Issue (3): 466-472    DOI: 10.12891/ceog4683.2019
Original Research Previous articles | Next articles
Pelvic organ prolapse surgery after different hysterectomy methods: a population-based cohort study
A. Klimczak1, *(), G. Kilic1, B.S. Unlu1, Y.-L. Lin2, Y.-F. Kuo2, M. Borahay3
1Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA
2Office of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine and Community Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, TX, USA
3Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
Download:  PDF(450KB)  ( 234 ) Full text   ( 4 )
Export:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

Background: Pelvic floor disorders are expected to greatly increase in the coming years. Many factors have been implicated in the development of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). In the last decade, the route of hysterectomy performed has shifted more towards robotic/laparoscopic techniques, and the role that the hysterectomy route plays in the need for future POP repair remains uncertain. Here the authors investigate the association of POP repair following robotic/laparoscopic hysterectomies, as well as vaginal, supracervical, and abdominal modalities. Results: Patients living in the West were more likely to have a prolapse repair post-hysterectomy than those living in the Midwest (HR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.01-1.93). Patients with hospital stays ≥ 4 days following hysterectomies were more likely to require future prolapse repairs than those with ≤ 1-day stays (HR 1.71; 95% CI: 1.10-2.65). Compared to abdominal procedures, robotic/laparoscopic modalities were more likely to be associated with prolapse within 18 months of hysterectomies (HR 1.72, 95% CI: 1.13-2.61). However, between 18 and 36 months, both supracervical and vaginal hysterectomies were more likely to be associated with prolapse surgeries (HR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.15-3.34 and HR 1.94; 95% CI: 1.02-3.70, respectively). Conclusions: Region and length of hospital stay significantly impacted the need for future prolapse repair. Among modalities, the association with prolapse repair changes with time.

Key words:  Pelvic organ prolapse      Hysterectomy      Prolapse repair     
Published:  10 June 2019     
*Corresponding Author(s):  A. KLIMCZAK     E-mail:  amklimcz@utmb.edu

Cite this article: 

A. Klimczak, G. Kilic, B.S. Unlu, Y.-L. Lin, Y.-F. Kuo, M. Borahay. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery after different hysterectomy methods: a population-based cohort study. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2019, 46(3): 466-472.

URL: 

https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/10.12891/ceog4683.2019     OR     https://ceog.imrpress.com/EN/Y2019/V46/I3/466

[1] Cengiz Andan, Serif Aksin, Mehmet Rifat Goklu, Seyhmus Tunc. Factors related to blood loss in laparoscopic hysterectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(5): 1075-1080.
[2] Eren Akbaba, Burak Sezgin, Ahmet Akın Sivaslıoğlu. Anatomical and clinical outcomes of vaginally assisted laparoscopiclateral suspension in comparison with laparoscopic lateral suspension[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(4): 935-941.
[3] Eren Akbaba. Can high transverse skin incision (Modified Maylard) be a new alternative in placenta accreta spectrum management with cesarean hysterectomy?[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(3): 686-690.
[4] Han Bich Choi, Moon Kyoung Cho, Chul Hong Kim. Comparison of vaginal hysterectomy with McCall culdoplasty and transvaginal mesh surgery in the management of female pelvic organ prolapse[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 389-394.
[5] Shaadaiti Wufuer, XiaoHui Wan, Buhaiqiemu Kadeer, Adilai Maimaitimin, Gulina Ababaikeli. Expression of pelvic organ prolapse-related protein fibulin-5, TGFβ, and Smad2/3 in Uyghur women of Xinjiang[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(2): 416-422.
[6] Yuki Yoshimura, Kentaro Nakayama, Kiyoka Sawada, Hitomi Yamashita, Kohei Nakamura, Tomoka Ishibashi, Masako Ishikawa, Sultana Razia, Seiya Sato, Satoru Kyo. A case of rectal injury due to vaginal pipe misinsertion during total laparoscopic hysterectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2021, 48(1): 194-197.
[7] X.R. Wang, Y.F. Wang, S.W. Kang, Y. Zhang. Treatment outcomes of uterine lesion resection versus hysterectomy for cesarean scar pregnancy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 882-886.
[8] O. Sevket, T. Takmaz, A.C. Sevket, A. Toprak, P. Ozcan. Vaginal assisted laparoscopic sacrocervicopexy with anterior colpotomy (VALSAC): technique and mean 20 months outcomes[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 887-894.
[9] J.L. Liu, J.M. Chen, Y.F. Zheng, X.W. Zhang, R.X. Shi. 5 mm mini-incision laparoendoscopic single-site surgery of total hysterectomy: a report of five cases and literature review[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(6): 895-899.
[10] Ö. Koşar Can, Ö.T. Güler, Ü. Çabuş, D. Kılıç, C. Kabukçu. Evaluation of sexual functions and quality of life in female patients after hysterectomy for benign symptomatic diseases[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 693-700.
[11] E.D. Na, S.H. Choi, H. Park. Robotic laparoendoscopic single-site surgery for concurrent hysterectomy and cholecystectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 792-796.
[12] P. Phangsuwan, P. Suprasert. Development of abnormal bowel function after simple hysterectomy[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(5): 744-748.
[13] G. Calongos, Y. Tsuji, Y. Ito, M. Handa, Y. Kubota, A. Ida. Short term outcomes of a new non-dissection minimally invasive surgery method for cystocele repair[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 355-358.
[14] K. Tamura, H. Takahashi, S. Uchida, M. Ogoyama, R. Usui, S. Matsubara. Intrauterine balloon failure: unrecognized placenta accreta spectrum disorders[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(3): 405-408.
[15] D. Jovanovic, D. R. Milovanovic, I. Jovanovic, M. Folic, V. Jakovljevic. Influence of cytokines on the postoperative period[J]. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020, 47(1): 31-36.
No Suggested Reading articles found!