Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prolapse repair in the elderly patient: contemporary trends and 30-day perioperative complications

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Pelvic organ prolapse is common and increases with age. Although conservative options exist for management, surgery remains a mainstay of treatment. Understanding how surgical repair affects the elderly is increasingly important as the population ages. We set out to describe current treatment patterns for prolapse repair in the elderly. Our main goal was to compare perioperative morbidity and mortality for elderly patients who undergo surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse with colpocleisis, vaginal repair or sacrocolpopexy.

Methods

Women 75 years and older who underwent prolapse repair from 2014 to 2016 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for colpocleisis, vaginal prolapse repair, and abdominal sacrocolpopexy. Variables including demographics, comorbidities, concomitant hysterectomy or stress urinary incontinence procedure, hospital length of stay, morbidity, and mortality were evaluated. A regression model was used to analyze risk factors for perioperative complications.

Results

We identified 764 women who underwent prolapse repair. The largest proportion of patients (334, 43.7%) underwent transvaginal repair, closely followed by colpocleisis (323, 42.3%), and the remainder (107, 14%) sacrocolpopexy. Older age and higher ASA class were significantly associated with colpocleisis (p < 0.001, p = 0.03). No difference was observed in complications across the three approaches, but length of stay was shorter (1.2 days vs 1.7 days, p = 0.03) for colpocleisis.

Conclusions

In current practice, patients undergoing colpocleisis compared with transvaginal repair or sacrocolpopexy are older with more comorbidities. Despite this, length of stay remains shorter for these patients and complications rates equivalent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:501–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, Dieter AA, Myers ER, Sung VW. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):230.e1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. LeFort L. Nouveau procédé: Pour la guérison du prolapsus utérin. Bull Thér Méd Chir. 1877;92:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Sederl J. Surgery in prolapse of a blind-end vagina. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 1958;18:824–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gerten KA, Markland AD, Lloyd LK, Richter HE. Prolapse and incontinence surgery in older women. J Urol. 2008;179:2111–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Buchsbaum GM, Lee TG. Vaginal obliterative procedures for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2017;72:175–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:CD004014.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hill AJ, Walters MD, Unger CA. Perioperative adverse events associated with colpocleisis for uterovaginal and post hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vetere PF, Putterman S, Kesselman E. Major reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in elderly women, including the medically compromised. J Reprod Med. 2003;48:417–21.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mohammed N, Raschid Hoda M, Fornara P. Prolapse surgery in octogenarians: are we pushing the limits too far? World J Urol. 2013;31(3):623–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brodak M, Tomasek J, Pacovsky J, et al. Urologic surgery in elderly patients: results and complications. Clin Interv Aging. 2015;10:379–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Krissi H, Aviram A, Ram E, Eitan R, Wiznitzer A, Peled Y. Colpocleisis surgery in women over 80 years old with severe triple compartment pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;195:206–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sung VW, Weitzen S, Sokol ER, Rardin CR, Myers DL. Effect of patient age on increasing morbidity and mortality following urogynecologic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1411–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Robinson BL, Parnell BA, Sandbulte JS, Geller EJ, Connolly AM, MatthewsCA. Robotic versus vaginal urogynecologic surgery: a retrospective cohort study of perioperative complications in elderly women. Female Pelvic Med Reconst Surg. 2013;19:230–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Suskind AM, Jin C, Walter LC, Finlayson E. Frailty and the role of obliterative versus reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: a National Study. J Urol. 2017;197(6):1502–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. About ACS NSQIP. Available at: https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/acs-nsqip/about. Accessed 5 Jan 2020.

  17. Shiloach M, Frencher SK Jr, Steeger JE, et al. Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(1):6–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Stepp KJ, Barber MD, Yoo EH, Whiteside JL, Paraiso MF, Walters MD. Incidence of perioperative complications of urogynecologic surgery in elderly women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1630–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Catanzarite T, Rambachan A, Mueller MG, et al. Risk factors for 30-day perioperative complications after Le Fort colpocleisis. J Urol. 2014;192:788–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hill AJ, Walters MD, Unger CA. Perioperative adverse events associated with colpocleisis for uterovaginal and posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214:501.e1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Crisp CC, Book NM, Smith AL, et al. Body image, regret, and satisfaction following colpocleisis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209:473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Barber MD, Amundsen CL, Paraiso MR, et al. Quality of life after surgery for genital prolapse in elderly women: obliterative and reconstructive surgery. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007;18:799–806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Murphy M, Sternschuss G, Haff R, et al. Quality of life and surgical satisfaction after vaginal reconstructive vs obliterative surgery for the treatment of advanced pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:573.e1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Narins H, Danforth TL. Management of pelvic organ prolapse in the elderly—is there a role for robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy? Robot Surg. 2016;3:65–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Krlin RM, Soules KA, Winters JC. Surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse in elderly patients. Curr Opin Urol. 2016;26:193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bretschneider CE, Robinson B, Geller EJ, Wu JM. The effect of age on postoperative morbidity in women undergoing urogynecologic surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015;21(4):236–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, New York University Langone Health, 222 E 41st Street, New York, NY, 10017, USA

    Alice Drain, Christina Escobar & Dominique Pape

Authors
  1. Alice Drain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christina Escobar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dominique Pape
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

A. Drain: data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing; C. Escobar: data analysis, manuscript editing; D. Pape: project development, manuscript editing.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alice Drain.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drain, A., Escobar, C. & Pape, D. Prolapse repair in the elderly patient: contemporary trends and 30-day perioperative complications. Int Urogynecol J 31, 2095–2100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04365-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04365-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation