Specialty-Specific Trends in Surgery for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse Post Vaginal Mesh.

Rahul Dutta, Raymond Xu, D. Wolff, Gopal Badlani, C. Matthews
{"title":"Specialty-Specific Trends in Surgery for Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse Post Vaginal Mesh.","authors":"Rahul Dutta, Raymond Xu, D. Wolff, Gopal Badlani, C. Matthews","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IMPORTANCE\nSince transvaginal mesh (VM) kits for apical pelvic organ prolapse (APOP) were labeled \"high-risk\" in 2016 and subsequently banned in 2019 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the most common remaining surgical options include abdominal mesh-augmented sacrocolpopexy (AS) and transvaginal native tissue suspension (VN).\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nThe objective of this study was to determine temporal trends in APOP procedures for urologists and gynecologists.\n\n\nSTUDY DESIGN\nBetween 2011 and 2020, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for AS, VM, and VN.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThere were 26,477 cases of APOP repair (32% AS, 6% VM, 62% VN) included, 9% by urologists. Urologists operated on older (65 vs 61 years) patients with more medical comorbidities. Urologists performed significantly higher proportion of AS (65% vs 29%) and VM (8% vs 6%) relative to VN (27% vs 65%) than gynecologists (P < 0.0001). Transvaginal mesh utilization has decreased over time for both specialties (P < 0.05); nonsignificant trends toward increasing AS (P = 0.1646) in urologists and VN (P = 0.0913) in gynecologists concurrently occurred. Significant independent predictors of the operating surgeon being a urologist were surgery being performed in the latter half of the cohort (2016-2020; odds ratio [OR], 1.22), non-White patient race (OR < 1 for all), a concomitant sling being placed (OR = 0.89), the surgery being VM (OR = 2.95) or AS (OR = 4.36), the patient being older (OR > 1 for each age range), and having a higher frailty index score (OR = 1.16).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nSignificant differences in APOP repair choices exist between specialties. Urologists operate on older, more medically complex patients while demonstrating a strong preference for mesh-augmented compared with transvaginal native tissue repairs.","PeriodicalId":517282,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology","volume":"319 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001458","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

IMPORTANCE Since transvaginal mesh (VM) kits for apical pelvic organ prolapse (APOP) were labeled "high-risk" in 2016 and subsequently banned in 2019 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the most common remaining surgical options include abdominal mesh-augmented sacrocolpopexy (AS) and transvaginal native tissue suspension (VN). OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to determine temporal trends in APOP procedures for urologists and gynecologists. STUDY DESIGN Between 2011 and 2020, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for AS, VM, and VN. RESULTS There were 26,477 cases of APOP repair (32% AS, 6% VM, 62% VN) included, 9% by urologists. Urologists operated on older (65 vs 61 years) patients with more medical comorbidities. Urologists performed significantly higher proportion of AS (65% vs 29%) and VM (8% vs 6%) relative to VN (27% vs 65%) than gynecologists (P < 0.0001). Transvaginal mesh utilization has decreased over time for both specialties (P < 0.05); nonsignificant trends toward increasing AS (P = 0.1646) in urologists and VN (P = 0.0913) in gynecologists concurrently occurred. Significant independent predictors of the operating surgeon being a urologist were surgery being performed in the latter half of the cohort (2016-2020; odds ratio [OR], 1.22), non-White patient race (OR < 1 for all), a concomitant sling being placed (OR = 0.89), the surgery being VM (OR = 2.95) or AS (OR = 4.36), the patient being older (OR > 1 for each age range), and having a higher frailty index score (OR = 1.16). CONCLUSIONS Significant differences in APOP repair choices exist between specialties. Urologists operate on older, more medically complex patients while demonstrating a strong preference for mesh-augmented compared with transvaginal native tissue repairs.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阴道网片术后顶端盆腔器官脱垂手术的专科趋势。
重要意义自 2016 年经阴道网片 (VM) 套件治疗顶端盆腔器官脱垂 (APOP) 被贴上 "高风险 "标签并随后于 2019 年被美国食品和药物管理局禁用以来,最常见的剩余手术选择包括腹部网片垫片骶骨结节成形术 (AS) 和经阴道原生组织悬吊术 (VN)。本研究的目的是确定泌尿科医生和妇科医生进行 APOP 手术的时间趋势。研究设计在 2011 年至 2020 年期间,对美国外科医生学会国家手术质量改进计划数据库中的 AS、VM 和 VN 进行了查询。结果共纳入 26,477 例 APOP 修复病例(32% AS、6% VM、62% VN),其中 9% 由泌尿科医生实施。泌尿科医生手术的患者年龄较大(65 岁对 61 岁),合并症较多。相对于 VN(27% 对 65%),泌尿科医生进行 AS(65% 对 29%)和 VM(8% 对 6%)手术的比例明显高于妇科医生(P < 0.0001)。随着时间的推移,两个专科的经阴道网片使用率都有所下降(P < 0.05);同时,泌尿科医师的 AS(P = 0.1646)和妇科医师的 VN(P = 0.0913)也出现了不明显的增加趋势。手术医生为泌尿科医生的重要独立预测因素包括:手术在队列的后半期(2016-2020 年;比值比 [OR],1.22)进行、非白人患者种族(所有比值比均小于 1)、同时放置吊带(OR = 0.结论不同专业在 APOP 修复选择上存在显著差异。泌尿科医生为年龄更大、病情更复杂的患者进行手术,与经阴道原生组织修复术相比,他们更倾向于选择网片增强型修复术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Staged Versus Concomitant Stress Incontinence Procedures With Prolapse Repairs The Effect of a Physician Consultation on Patient Reported Outcomes in Urogynecology 16th EUGA Annual Congress 19-21 October 2023, Varese – Palais des Congrès Laser and Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Urinary Incontinence: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Access to Urogynecologic Care in Federally Qualified Health Centers: A Mystery Caller Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1