Long-term outcomes and predictors of failure after surgery for stage IV apical pelvic organ prolapse
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis The aim of this study was to compare outcomes after uterosacral ligament suspension (USLS) or sacrocolpopexy for symptomatic stage IV apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and evaluate predictors of prolapse recurrence.Methods The medical records of patients managed surgically for stage IV apical POP from January 2002 to June 2012 were reviewed. A follow-up survey was sent to these patients. The primary outcome, prolapse recurrence, was defined as recurrence of prolapse symptoms measured by validated questionnaire or surgical retreatment. Survival time free of prolapse recurrence was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated factors for an association with recurrence.Results Of 2633 women treated for POP, 399 (15.2%) had stage IV apical prolapse and were managed with either USLS (n = 355) or sacrocolpopexy (n = 44). Those managed with USLS were significantly older (p < 0.001) and less likely to have a prior hysterectomy (39.7 vs 86.4%; p < 0.001) or prior apical prolapse repair (8.2 38.6%; p < 0.001). Median follow-up was 4.3 years [interquartile range (IQR) 1.1-7.7]. Survival free of recurrence was similar between USLS and sacrocolpopexy (p = 0.43), with 5-year rates of 88.7 and 97.6%, respectively. Younger age [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-2.13; p = 0.008] and prior hysterectomy (aHR 2.8, 95% CI 1.39-5.64; p = 0.004) were associated with the risk of prolapse recurrence, whereas type of surgery approached statistical significance (aHR 2.76, 95% CI 0.80-9.60; p = 0.11).Conclusions Younger age and history of prior hysterectomy were associated with an increased risk of recurrent prolapse symptoms. Notably, excellent survival free of prolapse recurrence were obtained with both surgical techniques.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 30 · Cited by 14
- Authors
- Linder, B. J., El-Nashar, S. A., Mukwege, A. A., Weaver, A. L., McGree, M. E., Rhodes, D. J., Gebhart, J. B., Klingele, C. J., Occhino, J. A., & Trabuco, E. C.
- Affiliations
- Mayo Clinic (US)
- Corresponding author
- Linder, Brian J.
- ORCID
- Venue
- International Urogynecology Journal
- Published
- 2017-09-18
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 803-810
- ISSN
- 0937-3462 (ISSN-L)
- 1433-3023
- OpenAlex
- W2754074545
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Urogynecology Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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
- apical pelvic organ prolapse, uterosacral ligament suspension, sacrocolpopexy, prolapse recurrence, predictors of recurrence, age, surgical outcomes, long-term follow-up, surgical retreatment, women's health surgery, pelvic floor reconstruction, recurrence risk factors, surgical technique comparison
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Age Factors, Female, Humans, Hysterectomy, Postoperative Complications, Severity of Illness Index, Gynecologic Surgical Procedures, Vagina, Proportional Hazards Models, Treatment Outcome, Treatment Failure, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Young Adult, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
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