Int Urogynecol J (2015) 26:207–212 DOI 10.1007/s00192-014-2474-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse Kelly L. Kantartzis & Lindsay C. Turner & Jonathan P. Shepherd & Li Wang & Daniel G. Winger & Jerry L. Lowder

Received: 7 April 2014 / Accepted: 26 June 2014 / Published online: 3 September 2014 # The International Urogynecological Association 2014

Abstract 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

Apical support at the time of hysterectomy for uterovaginal prolapse.

The aim was to determine factors associated with performing concurrent apical support procedures in hysterectomies carried out for uterovaginal prolap...
294KB Sizes 2 Downloads 10 Views