International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 25, Issue 9, pp 1251–1256

The effect of age on complications in women undergoing minimally invasive sacral colpopexy

  • L. C. Turner
  • K. Kantartzis
  • J. L. Lowder
  • J. P. Shepherd
Original Article


Introduction and hypothesis

Previous research has demonstrated similar complication rates in older and younger women undergoing abdominal sacral colpopexy via laparotomy. The objective of this study was to compare perioperative complications in older and younger women undergoing minimally invasive sacral colpopexy.


This was a retrospective study of laparoscopic and robotic sacral colpopexies performed from January 2009 to May 2012 at a large academic center. Patient demographics, surgical data, and perioperative complications were compared in women < 65 and ≥65 years of age. Primary outcome was the difference in major complications.


A total of 302 women underwent minimally invasive sacral colpopexy during the study period. Mean age was 58.5 ± 8.8 years and 84 subjects (27.8 %) were ≥65 years. Older women were more likely to have had a prior hysterectomy (60.7 vs 39.0 %, p = 0.001) and had more severe preoperative prolapse (86.9 % vs 71.9 % ≥ POPQ stage III, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in duration of hospitalization (1.4 vs 1.4 days, p = 0.54). Overall, there were significantly more major complications in women ≥ 65 years (unadjusted OR 1.84, 95 % CI 1.02–3.35, p = 0.04). After controlling for BMI, route of surgery, estimated blood loss (EBL), and operating room time, age ≥ 65 remained a significant predictor of complications (adjusted OR 2.28, 95 % CI 1.21–4.29, p = 0.01).


Our findings suggest that older women have a higher rate of major complications following minimally invasive sacral colpopexy, even after controlling for BMI, route of surgery, EBL, and operating room time. This increased risk should be addressed during preoperative counseling and may influence surgical planning.


Minimally invasive sacral colpopexy Perioperative complications Elderly Vaginal prolapse 


  1. 1.
    Jones KA, Shepherd JP, Oliphant SS, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL (2010) Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979–2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol 200(501):e1–7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N (2010) Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 116(5):1096–1100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY (2001) The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184(7):1496–1501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    United Nations. Population ageing and development 2012. Accessed 10 July 2013
  5. 5.
    Vetere PF, Putterman S, Kesselman E (2003) Major reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in elderly women including the medically compromised. J Reprod Med 48(6):417–421PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tuschy B, Berlit S, Hornemann A, Sutterlin M, Bussen S (2012) Morbidity in elderly women undergoing gynaecological pelvic floor surgery. Arch Gynecol Obstet 285:1295–1300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richter HE, Goode PS, Kenton K, Brown MB, Burgio KL, Kreder K, Moalli P, Wright EJ, Weber AM (2007) The effect of age on short-term outcomes after abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. J Am Geriatr Soc 55:857–863PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sung V, Weitzen S, Sokol ER, Rardin CR, Myers DL (2006) Effect of patient age on increasing morbidity and mortality following urogynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1411–1417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lane FE (1962) Repair of posthysterectomy vaginal-vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 20:72–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C (2013) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4, CD004014PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liss MA, Skarecky D, Morales B, Osann K, Eichel L, Ahlering TE (2013) Preventing perioperative complications of robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy. Urology 81(2):319–323PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stepp KJ, Barber MD, Yoo EH, Whiteside JL, Paraiso MF, Walters MD (2005) Incidence of perioperative complications of urogynecologic surgery in elderly women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:1630–1636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Geller EJ, Siddiqui NY, Wu JM, Visco AG (2008) Short-term outcomes of robotic sacrocolpopexy compared with abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Obstet Gynecol 112(6):1201–1206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Centinel B, Oktay D, Bulent O, Akkus E, Alan C, Can G (2004) Are there any factors predicting the cure and complication rates of tension-free vaginal tape? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15:188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Friedman WH, Gallup DG, Burke JJ, Meister EA, Hoskins WJ (2006) Outcomes of octogenarians and nonagenarians in elective major gynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barber MD, Amudsen CL, Paraiso MFR, Weidner AC, Romero A, Walters MD (2007) Quality of life after surgery for genital prolapse in elderly women: obliterative and reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18:799PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Geriatrics Society 2012 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel (2012) American Geriatrics Society updated Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 60(4):616–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lambrou NC, Buller JL, Thompson JR, Cundiff GW, Chou B, Montz FJ (2000) Prevalence of perioperative complications among women undergoing reconstructive pelvic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183(6):1355–1358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gerten KA, Markland AD, Lloyd LK, Richter HE (2008) Prolapse and incontinence surgery in older women. J Urol 179(6):2111–2118PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Robinson BL, Parnell BA, Sandbulte JT, Geller EJ, Connolly A, Matthews CA (2013) Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study of perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19(4):230–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kantartzis K, Sutkin G, Winger D, Wang L, Shepherd JP (2013) Introduction of laparoscopic sacral colpopexy to a fellowship training program. Int Urogynecol J 24:1877–1881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kaminski P, Soroskiy J, Pees R, Podczaski ES (1993) Correction of massive vaginal prolapse in an older population: A four year experience at a rural tertiary care center. J Am Geriatr Soc 41:42–44PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. C. Turner
    • 1
  • K. Kantartzis
    • 1
  • J. L. Lowder
    • 2
  • J. P. Shepherd
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Urogynecology, Department of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive SciencesUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyWashington University School of Medicine in St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations