Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 24, Issue 11, pp 1939–1946 | Cite as

Improving the accuracy of prolapse and incontinence procedure epidemiology by utilizing both inpatient and outpatient data

  • Christopher S. Elliott
  • Kim F. Rhoads
  • Craig V. Comiter
  • Bertha Chen
  • Eric R. Sokol
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The epidemiologic description of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) procedures is documented in several large studies using national database cohorts. These studies, however, may underestimate the number of procedures performed because they only capture procedures performed in either the inpatient or outpatient settings alone. We present a complete annual description of all inpatient and outpatient surgeries for POP and SUI in California.

Methods

We reviewed a record of all inpatient and outpatient POP and SUI surgeries performed in California in 2008 using data from the Office of Statewide Health Planning (OSHPD).

Results

In 2008, 20,004 and 20,330 women in California underwent POP and SUI procedures, respectively. Of these, 3,134 (15.6 %) and 9,016 (44.3 %) were performed in an outpatient setting. The age-adjusted rates of POP and SUI were 1.20 and 1.20 per 1,000 US females, respectively. This correlates to 186,000 POP and 186,000 SUI procedures per year nationally. Vaginal apical suspensions were more common in those undergoing surgery as an inpatient (45.1 vs 19.4 %). The use of mesh to augment prolapse repairs was similar (22.3 % inpatient vs 19.3 % outpatient). SUI procedures performed in the outpatient setting were more likely to be performed as stand-alone procedures (82.9 vs 18.8 %, respectively).

Conclusions

In California, 16 % of POP and 44 % of SUI procedures were performed in an outpatient surgical setting in 2008. Epidemiologic studies of POP and SUI should account for the fact that a substantial number of repairs are performed in the outpatient setting in order to achieve accuracy.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Stress urinary incontinence Epidemiology Surgery 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Kim Rhoads’ work on this project was supported by a Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Award from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ.

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Erekson EA, Lopes VV, Raker CA et al (2010) Ambulatory procedures for female pelvic floor disorders in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:497.e1–497.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones KA, Shepherd JP, Oliphant SS et al (2010) Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979–2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202:501.e1–501.e7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shah AD, Kohli N, Rajan SS et al (2008) The age distribution, rates, and types of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in the USA. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:421–428PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L (2003) Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979–1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 188:108–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown JS, Waetjen LE, Subak LL et al (2002) Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States, 1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:712–716PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wu JM, Gandhi MP, Shah AD et al (2011) Trends in inpatient urinary incontinence surgery in the USA, 1998–2007. Int Urogynecol J 22:1437–1443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oliphant SS, Wang L, Bunker CH et al (2009) Trends in stress urinary incontinence inpatient procedures in the United States, 1979–2004. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200:521.e1–521.e6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L (2004) Ambulatory procedures for urinary incontinence in the United States, 1994–1996. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:33–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L (2003) Procedures for urinary incontinence in the United States, 1979–1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:70–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF et al (2011) Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:230.e1–230.e5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    (2008) Emergency department and ambulatory surgery center file documentation. http://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Products/EmerDeptData/Documentation/EDAS_2008_1st.pdf
  13. 13.
    (2011) Table 2. Intercensal estimates of the resident population by sex and age for California: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010. http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/state/ST-EST00INT-02.html, vol. 2012
  14. 14.
    Klein RJ, Schoenborn CA (2001) Age adjustment using the 2000 projected U.S. population. Healthy People 2010 Stat Notes 20:1–10Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    (2011) Table 1. Intercensal estimates of the resident population by sex and age for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2010. http://www.census.gov/popest/data/intercensal/national/nat2010.html, vol. 2012
  16. 16.
    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology (2007) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 85: pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 110:717–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rhoads KF, Sokol ER (2011) Variation in the quality of surgical care for uterovaginal prolapse. Med Care 49:46–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Summers A, Winkel LA, Hussain HK et al (2006) The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1438–1443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller ER et al (2006) Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1837–1840PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lowder JL, Park AJ, Ellison R et al (2008) The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 111:152–157PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elliott CS, Yeh J, Comiter CV et al (2013) The predictive value of a cystocele for concomitant vaginal apical prolapse. J Urol 189:200–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rogo-Gupta L, Rodriguez LV, Litwin MS et al (2012) Trends in surgical mesh use for pelvic organ prolapse from 2000 to 2010. Obstet Gynecol 120:1105–1115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iglesia CB, Sokol AI, Sokol ER et al (2010) Vaginal mesh for prolapse: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 116:293–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paraiso MF, Barber MD, Muir TW et al (2006) Rectocele repair: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques including graft augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1762–1771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Milani R, Salvatore S, Soligo M et al (2005) Functional and anatomical outcome of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse repair with prolene mesh. BJOG 112:107–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher S. Elliott
    • 1
  • Kim F. Rhoads
    • 2
  • Craig V. Comiter
    • 1
  • Bertha Chen
    • 3
  • Eric R. Sokol
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of UrologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of General SurgeryStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyStanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations