Incidence of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse 10 years following primary surgical management: a retrospective cohort study
Abstract
We conducted this study to estimate the rate of, and identify risk factors for, recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) following primary surgical repair. The study consisted of a retrospective cohort study of 142 women who underwent primary surgical management of POP in 1993 and were followed up to 10 years. Prolapse severity was graded using an established classification system of clinical descriptors. Hazard ratios (HR) for recurrent POP were determined using Cox regression. 36 recurrent cases were identified (recurrence rate: 3.7 per 100 woman-years). A cystocele was the most frequent element of primary (87%) and recurrent (72%) prolapse. No predictors of the likelihood of recurrence were identified, though recurrence was somewhat more common among women with a history of two or fewer vaginal deliveries vs three or more (HR = 1.6; 95% confidence interval = 0.81-3.3). Recurrent POP following surgical management is common. Our ability to predict recurrence is limited.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Risk factors for POP include age, BMI, parity, family history of POP, levator avulsion, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic diseases.
“A series of studies have shown that risk factors for POP include age, BMI, parity, family history of POP, levator avulsion, diabetes mellitus and other chronic diseases (Tegerstedt and Hammarstr€ om 2004, Diez-Itza et al. 2007, Fialkow et al. 2008, Denman et al. 2008, Salvatore et al. 2009, Vergeldt et al. 2015).”
From Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse: a meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Fialkow et al. 2008
Surgery for POP is known to have a high recurrence rate of 36%.
“However, surgery for POP is known to have a high recurrence rate of 36% (Tegerstedt and Hammarstr€ om 2004, Diez-Itza et al. 2007, Fialkow et al. 2008, Friedman et al. 2018).”
From Risk factors for the recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse: a meta-analysis (2023) · cites this paper as Fialkow et al. 2008
The finding that advanced stage of prolapse was not a risk factor is consistent with Fialkow et al.
“Similarly, Fialkow et al. [15] did not find any association between advanced stage of POP and recurrence.”
From Risk factors for recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery among Ugandan women: a prospective cohort study (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
The higher recurrence rate reported by Vakili et al. (58% at 1 year) may be due to differences in the definitions of recurrence used.
“However, another study by Vakili et al. [16] reported a higher recurrence rate of 58% at 1 year after surgery. This contrast could be due to differences in the definitions of recurrence used. Vakili et al. [16] defined recurrence as any prolapse beyond stage zero according to the POP-Q system, whereas in this study we used POP-Q stage II or greater to define recurrence, as in other studies [12, 13”
From Risk factors for recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery among Ugandan women: a prospective cohort study (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
Reported recurrence rates after POP surgery vary widely, from 13% to 58% depending on follow-up duration and definition.
“The recurrence rates seem to differ from one study to another. Whiteside et al. [12] reported a recurrence rate of 58% after 1 year of follow-up, whereas in studies where the follow-up period was 5 years, recurrence was between 13 and 31% [13, 14]. Another study found a recurrence rate of 25% after a 10-year retrospective follow-up [15].”
From Risk factors for recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery among Ugandan women: a prospective cohort study (2022) · cites this paper as [15]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 8 · Cited by 89
- Authors
- Fialkow, M. F., Newton, K. M., & Weiss, N. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Group Health Cooperative (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fialkow, Michael F.
- Venue
- International Urogynecology Journal
- Published
- 2008-08-06
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1483-1487
- ISSN
- 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-3023
- OpenAlex
- W2043905725
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 3.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K12 HD1264-07, K12HD001264)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Ureteral procedures and complications
- Keywords
- pelvic organ prolapse, prolapse recurrence, primary repair, cystocele, risk factors, recurrence rate, long-term outcomes, women's health
- MeSH terms
- Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Prognosis, Recurrence, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Uterine Prolapse, Washington, Incidence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review