Long-term outcome after routine surgery for pelvic organ prolapse—A national register-based cohort study

27Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is common, and women have an estimated 12–19% lifetime risk for needing POP surgery. Aims were to measure re-operation rates up to 10 years after POP surgery and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) 5 years after a first-time operation for POP. Methods: This is a cohort study using the Swedish National Quality Register for Gynaecological Surgery (GynOp). We retrieved information from 32,086 POP-operated women up to 10 years later. After validation, a web-based PROM questionnaire was sent to 4380 women who 5 years previously had standard POP surgery. Main outcome measures were reoperations due to a relapse of prolapse and PROMs 5 years after the primary operation. Results: Among women operated for all types of POP, 11% had re-operations 5 years later and an additional 4% 10 years later, with similar frequencies for various compartments/types of surgery. PROMs yielded a 75% response rate after 5 years. Cure rate was 68% for anterior, 70% for posterior, and 74% for combined anterior-posterior native repairs. Patient satisfaction exceeded 70%, and symptom reduction was still significant after 5 years (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Following primary prolapse surgery, re-operation rates are low, even after 10 years. A web-based survey for follow-up of PROMs after POP surgery is feasible and yields a high response rate after 5 years. The subjective cure rate after primary POP operations is high, with reduced symptoms and satisfied patients regardless of compartment. Standard prolapse surgery with native tissue repair produces satisfactory long-term results.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Nüssler, E., Granåsen, G., Bixo, M., & Löfgren, M. (2022). Long-term outcome after routine surgery for pelvic organ prolapse—A national register-based cohort study. International Urogynecology Journal, 33(7), 1863–1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05156-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free