Addressing apical support during hysterectomy for prolapse: a NSQIP review

• Published in: International Urogynecology Journal Vol. 31; no. 7; pp. 1349 - 1355
• Main Authors: Hill, Austin M., Pauls, Rachel N., Crisp, Catrina C.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 01.07.2020; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Gynecology; Health risk assessment; Hysterectomy; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Original Article; Pelvic organ prolapse; Reconstructive surgery; Surgical outcomes; Surgical techniques; Urology; Apical support; Pelvic organ prolapse; Practice patterns; Hysterectomy
• ISSN: 0937-3462; 1433-3023
• DOI: 10.1007/s00192-020-04281-w

Objective To describe national practice patterns regarding apical support procedures at time of hysterectomy for prolapse prior to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) 2017 Practice Bulletin on pelvic organ prolapse. Methods This retrospective descriptive study analyzed 24 months of data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, from 2015 and 2016. Patients undergoing hysterectomy for the indication of pelvic organ prolapse were included. Surgical details, diagnostic codes, subspecialty, patient demographics, and postoperative complications were collected. Comparisons were conducted between those who did and did not undergo apical support procedures. Further comparisons, including logistic regressions, were performed using subspecialty designation. Results During the study period, 3458 hysterectomies were performed for the indication of pelvic organ prolapse. Of this population, 76% were White, with an average age of 61 years, BMI of 27.6, and parity of 2, and 90.5% carried the diagnosis of apical prolapse. Slightly over half (51.8%) had a concurrent procedure to support the vaginal apex. When performed by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) physicians, 65.7% underwent an apical suspension at time of hysterectomy for prolapse compared with 40.2% of non-FPMRS ( p  < 0.001). Annual rates of apical support procedures showed significant improvement from 49.5% in 2015 to 55.2% in 2016 ( P  < 0.001). Regarding surgical data, addition of apical support procedures increased operative time by 33 min, and reoperation was 1.3% higher (0.3% vs 1.6%). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that in the 2 years prior to ACOG’s recommendation only 51.8% of women undergoing hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse received concurrent procedures to address apical support.