The incidence of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse: an 11-year experience
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to measure the rate of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse. Study design: An 11-year retrospective audit was conducted of women who had undergone surgery for pelvic organ prolapse between 1995 and 2005 in a large teaching hospital in the UK. Main outcome measure: Variables examined included the type of primary procedure for pelvic organ prolapse overall and per year, the type of the repeat procedure and the interval between primary and repeat procedures. Analysis included calculation of the number and proportion of primary operations, the rate of reoperation, the type of repeat prolapse operation and the cumulative risk of reoperation each year for 11 years. Results: During the study period, 2099 women underwent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Of these women, 142 underwent a second operation for prolapse and 13 a third. The overall cumulative rate of reoperation following surgery for pelvic organ prolapse was 10.8% at 11 years following the initial procedure. The majority (61.5%) of repeat procedures did not involve the same compartment as the initial operation and recurrences tended to occur in the first few years after the first operation. Conclusion: Women who undergo surgery for pelvic organ prolapse are at 10.8% risk of requiring a reoperation within the next 11 years, usually at a different site.
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?
The new-site recurrence rate (43%) is similar to the 61.5% reported by Price et al.
“This is similar to a study by Price et al. [29] in which the recurrence in a new compartment was 61.5%.”
From Risk factors for recurrence of pelvic organ prolapse after vaginal surgery among Ugandan women: a prospective cohort study (2022) · cites this paper as [29]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 13 · Cited by 39
- Authors
- Price, N., Slack, A., Jwarah, E., & Jackson, S.
- Affiliations
- John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Price, Natalia
- Venue
- Menopause International
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-12
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 145-148
- ISSN
- 1754-0453 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1964864945
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 13
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 0.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Menopause international (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
- pelvic organ prolapse, reoperation, surgical outcomes, prolapse recurrence, pelvic floor surgery, women's health
- MeSH terms
- Female, Humans, Recurrence, Reoperation, Uterine 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