Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Although the surgical restoration of apical support has been shown to decrease reoperation rates, it is unclear whether this has been incorporated into current practice. The aims of this study were to determine the rate of concomitant apical suspensory procedures in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse undergoing surgical repair in 2011 and to identify associated factors.

Methods

This cross-sectional study queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample for women with a primary diagnosis of cystocele who underwent prolapse repair in 2011. The study cohort was analyzed for demographics, concomitant procedures, and hospital characteristics. The rate of apical suspensory procedures was determined. Factors potentially associated with receiving concomitant apical suspensory procedure were evaluated using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.

Results

A total of 2,900 women in the database had a primary diagnosis of cystocele and underwent surgical prolapse repair in 2011. 925 (31.9 %) subjects underwent a concomitant apical suspensory procedure. The mean age in the study cohort was 61.9 ± 12.8 years. Hysterectomies were performed in 11.1 % of subjects. 61.1 % were performed vaginally, 26.5 % laparoscopically, and 12.5 % abdominally. On multivariate analysis, age greater than 50 years, Caucasian race, concomitant hysterectomy, and an urban teaching hospital setting were independently associated with receiving concomitant apical suspensory procedure in 2011.

Conclusions

Despite evidence that the restoration of apical support is important for optimal anterior support, the overall rate of concomitant apical suspensory procedures is low. Several factors may play a role in whether or not women receive an apical suspensory procedure. This study highlights opportunities to improve the quality of surgical care provided to women with anterior vaginal prolapse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson FM (2014) Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol 123:1201–1206

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD (2004) Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:1533–1538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rooney K, Kenton K, Mueller E et al (2006) Advanced anterior vaginal wall prolapse is highly correlated with apical prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:1837–1840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bradley SL, Weidner AC, Siddiqui NY, Gandhi MP, Wu JM (2011) Shifts in national rates of inpatient prolapse surgery emphasize current coding inadequacies. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 17(4):204–208

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Shah AD, Kohli N, Rajan S, Hoyte L (2008) The age distribution, rates, and types of surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in the USA. Int Urogynecol J 19:421–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maher C (2013) Anterior vaginal compartment surgery. Int Urogynecol J 24:1791–1802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Eilber KS, Alperin M, Khan A et al (2013) Outcomes of vaginal prolapse surgery among female medicare beneficiaries: the role of apical support. Obstet Gynecol 122:981–987

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, Hsu Y, DeLancey JO (2006) Interaction among apical support, levator ani impairment, and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 108:324–332

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Elliott CS, Yeh J, Comiter CV, Chen B, Sokol ER (2013) The predictive value of a cystocele for concomitant vaginal apical prolapse. J Urol 189:200–203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lowder J, Park A, Ellison R et al (2008) The role of apical vaginal support in the appearance of anterior and posterior vaginal prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 111:152–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. HCUP Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS). Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) (2011) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed 9 September 2014

  13. Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A et al (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:795–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kantartzis KL, Turner LC, Shepherd JP, Wang L, Winger DG, Lowder JL (2015) Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 26:207–212

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I et al (2002) Pelvic organ prolapse in the women’s health initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:1160–1166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shah AD, Kohli N, Rajan SS, Hoyte L (2007) Racial characteristics of women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:70.e1–70.e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dunivan GC, Cichowski SB, Komesu YM et al (2014) Ethnicity and variations of pelvic organ prolapse bother. Int Urogynecol J 25:53–59

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. DeLancey JO (1992) Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:1717–1724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Blandon BE, Bharucha AE, Melton LJ III et al (2007) Incidence of pelvic floor repair after hysterectomy: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:664.e1–664.e7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. ACOG (2007) ACOG practice bulletin no. 85: pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 110:717–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rhoads KF, Sokol ER (2011) Variation in the quality of surgical care for uterovaginal prolapse. Med Care 49:46–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sultana CJ, Kenton K, Ricci E, Rogers RG (2007) The state of residency training in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J 18:1347–1350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Yune JJ, Siddighi S (2013) Perceptions and practice patterns of general gynecologists regarding urogynecology and pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 19:225–229

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. HCUP Summary Statistics Report: NIS 2011. Data Quality Report. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/nation/nis/tools/stats/SummaryStats_NIS_2011_Quality_Report.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2015

  25. Alas AN, Bresee C, Eilber K et al (2014) Measuring the quality of care provided to women with pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212:471.e1–471.e9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Abbasy S, Kenton K (2010) Obliterative procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 53:86–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Chene G, Tardieu A, Savary D et al (2008) Anatomical and functional results of McCall culdoplasty in the prevention of enteroceles and vaginal vault prolapse after vaginal hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 19:1007–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Summers A, Winkel LA, Kussain H, DeLancey JOL (2006) The relationship between anterior and apical compartment support. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1438–1443

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, 1639 Pierce Drive, Room 4208 WMB, Atlanta, GA, 30322, USA

    Gina M. Northington, Catherine O. Hudson, Deborah R. Karp & Sarah A. Huber

Authors
  1. Gina M. Northington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine O. Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Deborah R. Karp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sarah A. Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gina M. Northington.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

G. Northington: consultant, Pfizer. C. Hudson, D. Karp, S. Huber have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Northington, G.M., Hudson, C.O., Karp, D.R. et al. Concomitant apical suspensory procedures in women with anterior vaginal wall prolapse in the United States in 2011. Int Urogynecol J 27, 613–619 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2894-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2894-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation