CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 40Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsHernia repair and management

Risk Factors for the Recurrence of Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Open access
Jeon, Myung Jae, Chung, Sue Min, Jung, Hyun Joo, Kim, Sei Kwang, Bai, Sang Wook·2008·Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
DOI 10.1159/000149851
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background/Aims: To investigate the risk factors for the recurrence of prolapse after traditional pelvic reconstructive surgery. Methods: The medical records of 212 patients who received traditional restorative reconstructive surgeries for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse from March 1999 to April 2006 were retrospectively analyzed. Recurrence was defined as any prolapse of stage II or greater according to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system. The log-rank test and Cox regression of the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used in univariate analysis, and the Cox proportional hazard model was used in multivariate analysis. Results: The median follow-up period was 24 (range 1–84) months and the number of patients suffering from recurrence was 36 (17.0%). Age, parity, repetitive heavy lifting/chronic constipation, family history, hormone replacement therapy status, and preoperative stage all had an influence on the outcome, although preoperative stage IV was the only independent risk factor (hazard ratio (HR) 5.6, 95% CI 1.1–29.3, p = 0.044). Analyzing by compartments, preoperative stage IV (HR 18.6, 95% CI 2.1–162.3, p = 0.018) was an independent risk factor for the recurrence in anterior compartment, not for posterior or apical. Conclusions: Patients with a far advanced preoperative stage (stage IV), especially in cases of anterior prolapse, are more likely to experience a recurrence after traditional reconstructive surgery.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000149851

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • 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 [24]

  • The recurrence rate in this study is comparable to rates reported in South Korea and Finland (17% and 21%).

    “The recurrence rate in this study is comparable with that of other studies carried out in South Korea and Finland, with follow-up periods of up to 2 years, that reported recurrence rates of 17 and 21% respectively [24, 25].”

    From Risk factors for recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery among Ugandan women: a prospective cohort study (2022) · cites this paper as [24]

  • Recurrence rates following primary surgery range from 13 to 30% at 1-2 years, varying by definition and influenced by patient factors, anatomical features, and procedural elements.

    “Recurrence rates following primary surgery range from 13 to 30% at 1–2 years, varying by definition (subjective symptoms, anatomical stage ≥ 2, or reoperation) and are influenced by patient factors (age, parity, obesity), anatomical features (prolapse stage, levator integrity), and procedural elements (compartment addressed, concomitant repairs)”

    From Individualized Prediction of Recurrence Following Uterine-Preserving Pelvic Organ Prolapse Repair Using Internally Validated Machine Learning Models (2026) · cites this paper as [4]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jeon, M. J., Chung, S. M., Jung, H. J., Kim, S. K., & Bai, S. W.
Affiliations
Yonsei University (KR)
ORCID
Venue
Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2008
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
268-273
ISSN
  • 0378-7346 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-002X
DOI
10.1159/000149851
OpenAlex
W1968957316
Cited by
40
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • YUHSpace (Yonsei University Medical Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Hernia repair and management
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, prolapse recurrence, risk factors, pelvic reconstruction, anterior compartment prolapse, parity, heavy lifting, chronic constipation, hormone replacement therapy
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Recurrence, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Uterine Prolapse, Proportional Hazards Models, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

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