Loading…

Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse

Introduction and hypothesis The aim was to determine factors associated with performing concurrent apical support procedures in hysterectomies carried out for uterovaginal prolapse. Methods Hysterectomies performed for uterovaginal prolapse from 2000 to 2010 were identified by ICD-9 codes. Uterovagi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International Urogynecology Journal 2015-02, Vol.26 (2), p.207-212
Main Authors: Kantartzis, Kelly L., Turner, Lindsay C., Shepherd, Jonathan P., Wang, Li, Winger, Daniel G., Lowder, Jerry L.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction and hypothesis The aim was to determine factors associated with performing concurrent apical support procedures in hysterectomies carried out for uterovaginal prolapse. Methods Hysterectomies performed for uterovaginal prolapse from 2000 to 2010 were identified by ICD-9 codes. Uterovaginal prolapse was a proxy for apical descent. Primary outcome was the rate of concurrent apical procedures. Secondary outcomes included concurrent surgeries, complications, and surgeon training. Chi-squared tests compared categorical variables. Logistic regression determined factors associated with concurrent apical support. Results A total of 2,465 hysterectomies were performed for uterovaginal prolapse. In only 1,358 cases (55.1 %) were concurrent apical support procedures carried out. Cases without apical procedures were more likely to undergo cystocele repair (23.8 % vs 9.4 %, p  
ISSN:0937-3462
1433-3023
DOI:10.1007/s00192-014-2474-y