Incidence of adverse events after uterosacral colpopexy for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vault prolapse.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2015-05

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Repository Usage Stats

160
views
288
downloads

Citation Stats

Attention Stats

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to describe perioperative and postoperative adverse events associated with uterosacral colpopexy, to describe the rate of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) associated with uterosacral colpopexy, and to determine whether surgeon technique and suture choice are associated with these rates. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective chart review of women who underwent uterosacral colpopexy for POP from January 2006 through December 2011 at a single tertiary care center. The electronic medical record was queried for demographic, intraoperative, and postoperative data. Strict definitions were used for all clinically relevant adverse events. Recurrent POP was defined as the following: symptomatic vaginal bulge, prolapse to or beyond the hymen, or any retreatment for POP. RESULTS: In all, 983 subjects met study inclusion criteria. The overall adverse event rate was 31.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29.2-38.6), which included 20.3% (95% CI, 17.9-23.6) of subjects with postoperative urinary tract infections. Of all adverse events, 3.4% were attributed to a preexisting medical condition, while all other events were ascribed to the surgical intervention. Vaginal hysterectomy, age, and operative time were not significantly associated with any adverse event. The intraoperative bladder injury rate was 1% (95% CI, 0.6-1.9) and there were no intraoperative ureteral injuries; 4.5% (95% CI, 3.4-6.0) of cases were complicated by ureteral kinking requiring suture removal. The rates of pulmonary and cardiac complications were 2.3% (95% CI, 1.6-3.5) and 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4-1.6); and the rates of postoperative ileus and small bowel obstruction were 0.1% (95% CI, 0.02-0.6) and 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4-1.6). The composite recurrent POP rate was 14.4% (95% CI, 12.4-16.8): 10.6% (95% CI, 8.8-12.7) of patients experienced vaginal bulge symptoms, 11% (95% CI, 9.2-13.1) presented with prolapse to or beyond the hymen, and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.4-4.7) required retreatment. Number and type of suture used were not associated with a higher rate of recurrence. Of the subjects who required unilateral removal of sutures to resolve ureteral kinking, 63.6% did not undergo suture replacement; this was not associated with a higher rate of POP recurrence. CONCLUSION: Perioperative and postoperative complication rates associated with severe morbidity after uterosacral colpopexy appear to be low. Uterosacral colpopexy remains a safe option for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.

Department

Description

Provenance

Citation

Published Version (Please cite this version)

10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.034

Publication Info

Unger, Cecile A, Mark D Walters, Beri Ridgeway, J Eric Jelovsek, Matthew D Barber and Marie Fidela R Paraiso (2015). Incidence of adverse events after uterosacral colpopexy for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 212(5). pp. 603.e1–603.e7. 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.11.034 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/15143.

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.

Scholars@Duke

Jelovsek

John E Jelovsek

F. Bayard Carter Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Dr. Jelovsek is the F. Bayard Carter Distinguished Professor of OBGYN at Duke University and serves as Director of Data Science for Women’s Health. He is Board Certified in OBGYN by the American Board of OBGYN and in Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery by the American Board of OBGYN and American Board of Urology. He has an active surgical practice in urogynecology based out of Duke Raleigh. He has expertise as a clinician-scientist in developing and evaluating clinical prediction models using traditional biostatistics and machine learning approaches. These “individualized” patient-centered prediction tools aim to improve decision-making regarding the prevention of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and other pelvic floor disorders after childbirth (PMID:29056536), de novo stress urinary incontinence and other patient-perceived outcomes after pelvic organ prolapse surgery, risk of transfusion during gynecologic surgery, and urinary outcomes after mid-urethral sling surgery (PMID: 26942362). He also has significant expertise in leading trans-disciplinary teams through NIH-funded multi-center research networks and international settings. As alternate-PI for the Cleveland Clinic site in the NICHD Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, he was principal investigator on the CAPABLe trial (PMID: 31320277), one of the largest multi-center trials for fecal incontinence studying anal exercises with biofeedback and loperamide for the treatment of fecal incontinence. He was the principal investigator of the E-OPTIMAL study (PMID: 29677302), describing the long-term follow up sacrospinous ligament fixation compared to uterosacral ligament suspension for apical vaginal prolapse. He was also primary author on research establishing the minimum important clinical difference for commonly used measures of fecal incontinence. Currently, he serves as co-PI in the NIDDK Symptoms of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Research Network (LURN) (U01DK097780-05) where he has been involved in studies in the development of Symptoms of Lower Urinary Tract Dysfunction Research Network Symptom Index-29 (LURN SI-29) and LURN SI-10 questionnaires for men and women with LUTS. He is also the site-PI for the PREMIER trial (1R01HD105892): Patient-Centered Outcomes of Sacrocolpopexy versus Uterosacral Ligament Suspension for the Treatment of Uterovaginal Prolapse.

Barber

Matthew Don Barber

W. Allen Addison, M.D. Distinguished Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.