Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
Pelvic organ prolapse is a common diagnosis. Today there is no consensus on the ideal operation technique for apical prolapse. Vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the vaginal cuff is the most frequently used, but the popularity of uterus-preserving techniques is increasing. The aim of this study was to describe trends in surgical techniques used to treat primary apical prolapse in Danish hospitals.
Methods
Data were obtained from the Danish Urogynecological Database and included women with primary prolapse surgery in the apical compartment operated in Denmark 2010–2016. Public hospital departments were divided into three categories according to degree of urogynecological specialization: high level, moderate level, and no specialization.
Results
The number of vaginal hysterectomies decreased and the number of uterus-preserving operations increased from 2010 to 2016. The proportion of uterus-preserving techniques versus vaginal hysterectomy differed substantially between different hospital types. At departments with high and moderate levels of specialization, uterus-preserving techniques increased during the period, accounting for nearly 90% and 40%, respectively, in 2016, while decreasing to < 35% for departments with no specialization.
Three of the four departments with high-level specialization preferred the Manchester-Fothergill procedure, while one preferred sacrospinous hysteropexy.
Only 2.3% of all procedures were performed at private hospitals.
Conclusions
The proportion of uterus-preserving techniques to treat apical prolapse increased from 2010 to 2016. However, there is a wide variation in practice at the different hospitals. An agreement on uterus-preserving techniques has not been reached.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- ASA:
-
The American Society of Anesthesiologist
- BMI:
-
Body mass index
- DugaBase:
-
The Danish Urogynecological Database
- MP:
-
Manchester-Fothergill procedure
- SH:
-
Sacrospinous hysteropexy
- VH:
-
Vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the vaginal cuff
References
Løwenstein E, Ottesen B, Gimbel H. Incidence and lifetime risk of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Denmark from 1977 to 2009. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2014;26:49–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2413-y.
Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling RN, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolaspe and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.
Jha S, Moran P. The UK national prolapse survey: 5 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22:517–28.
Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:CD004014. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub4.
Tolstrup CK, Lose G, Klarskov N. The Manchester procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse: a review. Int Urogynecol J. 2016:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3100-y.
Tolstrup CK, Husby KR, Lose G, et al. The Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:431–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3519-9.
Husby KR, Tolstrup CK, Lose G, Klarskov N. Manchester–fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: an activity-based costing analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:1161–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3575-9.
Bergman I, Söderberg MW, Kjaeldgaard A, Ek M. Cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy: a population-based register study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28:257–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3119-0.
Frick AC. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19:103–9.
Guldberg R, Brostrøm S, Hansen JK, et al. The Danish urogynaecological database: establishment, completeness and validity. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2013;24:983–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1968-8.
Madsen AM, Raker C, Sung VW. Trends in Hysteropexy and apical support for Uterovaginal prolapse in the United States from 2002 to 2012. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2017;23:365–71.
Wu MP, Long CY, Huang KH, et al. Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: an 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:865–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1647-1.
Zacche MM, Mukhopadhyay S, Giarenis I. Trends in prolapse surgery in England. Int Urogynecol J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3731-2.
Kurkijärvi K, Aaltonen R, Gissler M, Mäkinen J. Pelvic organ prolapse surgery in Finland from 1987 to 2009: a national register based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;214:71–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.04.004.
Slopnick EA, Andrey P, David S, et al. Surgical trends and patient factors associated with the treatment of apical pelvic organ prolapse from a national sample. Int Urogynecol J. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3769-1.
Oversand SH, Staff AC, Spydslaug AE, et al. Long-term follow-up after native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25:81–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2166-z.
Vandendriessche D, Giraudet G, Lucot J, et al. Impact of laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy learning curve on operative time , perioperative complications and short term results. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;191:84–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.05.013.
Halpern-Elenskaia K, Umek W, Bodner-Adler B, Hanzal E. Anterior colporrhaphy: a standard operation? Systematic review of the technical aspects of a common procedure in randomized controlled trials. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29:781–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3510-5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
K.R. Husby has no financial disclaimers.
G. Lose has no disclosures.
N. Klarskov has, outside the study, received personal fees from Astellas Pharma.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Departments with a high level of urogynecological specialization | Departments with a moderate level of urogynecological specialization | Departments with no urogynecological specialization | Private hospitals |
• Herlev Hospital • Odense University Hospital • Aalborg University Hospital • Århus University Hospital | • Hvidovre Hospital • Randers Regional Hospital • Regional Hospital West Jutland (Herning) • Hospital of Southern Jutland (Åbenrå) • Nordsjællands Hospital (Hillerød) • Zealand University Hospital (Roskilde) • Nykøbing F. Hospital • Hospital South West Jutland (Esbjerg) • Viborg Region Hospital | • Regional Hospital Central Jutland (Silkeborg) • Holbæk Hospital • Hospital Vendsyssel • Regionshospitalet Horsens • Naestved Hospital • Slagelse Hospital • Sygehus Thy-Mors • Kolding Hospital | • Aleris Hamlet Hospitals: Søborg, Aalborg, and Århus • Capio CFR: Hellerup and Lyngby • Ciconia Århus Privathospital • Gråbrødreklinikken • Privathospitalet Møn • Privathospitalet Kollund |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Husby, K.R., Lose, G. & Klarskov, N. Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark. Int Urogynecol J 31, 321–327 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3852-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3852-7