Long-term patient-reported outcome for surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective cohort study

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction Pub Date : 2024-12-19 DOI:10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102895
Alexander Nima Sharami , Mari Heide Feiring , Ellen Nydal Eide , Heidi Thornhill , Jone Trovik
{"title":"Long-term patient-reported outcome for surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: A retrospective cohort study","authors":"Alexander Nima Sharami ,&nbsp;Mari Heide Feiring ,&nbsp;Ellen Nydal Eide ,&nbsp;Heidi Thornhill ,&nbsp;Jone Trovik","doi":"10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has traditionally been treated by vaginal native tissue repair. This study aimed to review two cohorts of women surgically treated for POP regarding surgical characteristics, and compare long-term outcomes based on subjective satisfaction and surgeon experience.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Retrospective cohort study of 490 women undergoing a primary native-tissue POP procedure during 2002–2004 (cohort 1, <em>n</em> = 201), or during 2012–2014 (cohort 2, <em>n</em> = 289). Patient-reported questionnaire data were collected in 2008 (cohort 1) and 2018 (cohort 2, and repeat survey cohort 1 (<em>n</em> = 97)). Clinical data were collected from patient files. Outcomes were assessed by Kaplan-Meier/log-rank test, binary logistic regression and Cox multivariate analysis.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Women in cohort 2 were operated at a younger age (median 64 versus 66 years, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) with grade 2 as dominant prolapse (156/289, 54 %), versus grade 3 dominant prolapse (130/201, 65 %, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) in cohort 1. In cohort 2 a higher proportion (172/289 (60 %) versus 39/201 (19 %), <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001) were operated with a procedure including all three compartments (anterior, apical and posterior). For 24 % (117/490) of all patients a peri‑/postoperative procedure-related complication was noted. After a median observation time of 163 months (cohort 1, 95 % confidence interval 160–169) and 63 months (cohort 2, 95 % confidence interval 62–64), a total of 43 patients (9 %) had been subjected to further prolapse surgery, median 41 months (95 % confidence interval 23–72) after the primary surgery. In all, 89 % of women (176/196 cohort 1, and 253/285 cohort 2, <em>p</em> = 0.722) were very/somewhat satisfied 4–6 years postoperatively, although 18 % (38/193 in cohort 1 and 50/282 in cohort 2) still reported prolapse symptoms. After 14–16 years 88 % (84/97) remained satisfied, but 31 % (30/97) reported prolapse symptoms. Neither satisfaction, peri‑/post-operative complications, nor reoperation-rate differed regarding lead surgeon experience-level (gynecologist in-training versus specialist).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Women operated by primarily native-tissue POP surgery report high levels of satisfaction, even 15 years after surgery, despite 31 % reporting prolapse related symptoms. Outcomes were similar regardless of lead surgeon being in-training or certified gynecologist.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15871,"journal":{"name":"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction","volume":"54 3","pages":"Article 102895"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468784724001740","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) has traditionally been treated by vaginal native tissue repair. This study aimed to review two cohorts of women surgically treated for POP regarding surgical characteristics, and compare long-term outcomes based on subjective satisfaction and surgeon experience.

Study design

Retrospective cohort study of 490 women undergoing a primary native-tissue POP procedure during 2002–2004 (cohort 1, n = 201), or during 2012–2014 (cohort 2, n = 289). Patient-reported questionnaire data were collected in 2008 (cohort 1) and 2018 (cohort 2, and repeat survey cohort 1 (n = 97)). Clinical data were collected from patient files. Outcomes were assessed by Kaplan-Meier/log-rank test, binary logistic regression and Cox multivariate analysis.

Results

Women in cohort 2 were operated at a younger age (median 64 versus 66 years, p < 0.001) with grade 2 as dominant prolapse (156/289, 54 %), versus grade 3 dominant prolapse (130/201, 65 %, p < 0.001) in cohort 1. In cohort 2 a higher proportion (172/289 (60 %) versus 39/201 (19 %), p < 0.001) were operated with a procedure including all three compartments (anterior, apical and posterior). For 24 % (117/490) of all patients a peri‑/postoperative procedure-related complication was noted. After a median observation time of 163 months (cohort 1, 95 % confidence interval 160–169) and 63 months (cohort 2, 95 % confidence interval 62–64), a total of 43 patients (9 %) had been subjected to further prolapse surgery, median 41 months (95 % confidence interval 23–72) after the primary surgery. In all, 89 % of women (176/196 cohort 1, and 253/285 cohort 2, p = 0.722) were very/somewhat satisfied 4–6 years postoperatively, although 18 % (38/193 in cohort 1 and 50/282 in cohort 2) still reported prolapse symptoms. After 14–16 years 88 % (84/97) remained satisfied, but 31 % (30/97) reported prolapse symptoms. Neither satisfaction, peri‑/post-operative complications, nor reoperation-rate differed regarding lead surgeon experience-level (gynecologist in-training versus specialist).

Conclusions

Women operated by primarily native-tissue POP surgery report high levels of satisfaction, even 15 years after surgery, despite 31 % reporting prolapse related symptoms. Outcomes were similar regardless of lead surgeon being in-training or certified gynecologist.

Abstract Image

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
盆腔器官脱垂手术治疗的长期患者报告结果:一项回顾性队列研究。
目的:盆腔器官脱垂(POP)的传统治疗方法是阴道原生组织修复。本研究旨在回顾两组接受POP手术治疗的女性的手术特征,并比较基于主观满意度和外科医生经验的长期结果。研究设计:回顾性队列研究,纳入2002-2004年(队列1,n=201)或2012-2014年(队列2,n=289)期间490名接受原发性原生组织POP手术的女性。收集了2008年(队列1)和2018年(队列2和重复调查队列1 (n=97))患者报告的问卷数据。临床资料从患者档案中收集。采用Kaplan-Meier/log-rank检验、二元logistic回归和Cox多因素分析评价结果。结果:队列2中的女性手术年龄较年轻(中位年龄为64岁,中位年龄为66岁)。结论:接受原生组织POP手术的女性报告了高水平的满意度,甚至在手术后15年,尽管31%的女性报告了脱垂相关症状。无论主刀医生是在职的还是有资格的妇科医生,结果都是相似的。
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
Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction
Journal of gynecology obstetrics and human reproduction Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
210
审稿时长
31 days
期刊介绍: Formerly known as Journal de Gynécologie Obstétrique et Biologie de la Reproduction, Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction is the official Academic publication of the French College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français / CNGOF). J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod publishes monthly, in English, research papers and techniques in the fields of Gynecology, Obstetrics, Neonatology and Human Reproduction: (guest) editorials, original articles, reviews, updates, technical notes, case reports, letters to the editor and guidelines. Original works include clinical or laboratory investigations and clinical or equipment reports. Reviews include narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
期刊最新文献
Editorial board Contents New reference charts for fetal ultrasound corpus callosum length with emphasis on the third trimester High-risk patient profiles for ovarian cancer: A new approach using cluster analysis of tumor markers Partners experiences of caesarean deliveries in the operating room
×
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