Content area
Full Text
Int Urogynecol J (2012) 23:12211224 DOI 10.1007/s00192-012-1736-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Reoperation for pelvic organ prolapse within 10 years of primary surgery for prolapse
Philipp T. Gotthart & Thomas Aigmueller &
Peter F. J. Lang & George Ralph & Vesna Bjelic-Radisic &
Karl Tamussino
Received: 7 October 2011 /Accepted: 4 March 2012 /Published online: 27 April 2012 # The International Urogynecological Association 2012
AbstractIntroduction and hypothesis A presumed high failure rate of conventional procedures for prolapse has been part of the rationale for new surgical approaches. The aim of the present retrospective cohort study was to estimate the reoperation rate for prolapse within 10 years of primary surgery for prolapse.
Methods We identified all patients who underwent primary surgery for prolapse at four large regional centers in Austria in 1997 and 1998. Hospital databases were searched to determine whether patients had been reoperated for prolapse through 2008.
Results A total of 456 patients underwent a primary operation for prolapse in 1997 and 1998. The most common
primary operation was vaginal hysterectomy with colporrhaphy (89 %). We identified 13 reoperations for prolapse, for a 10-year reoperation rate of (at least) 2.9 %. The median interval between primary and secondary surgery was5.5 years (range 1.510 years).
Conclusion The reoperation rate for prolapse after primary vaginal hysterectomy and colporrhaphy appears to be modest in this series of patients.
Keywords Prolapse . Prolapse surgery. Recurrent prolapse . Reoperation
Introduction
In 1997 a large and widely cited study by Olsen et al. [1] reported that almost 30 % of women undergoing an operation for pelvic organ prolapse or incontinence had undergone a previous procedure for a similar problem. The 10-year follow-up of the cohort in the Olsen study reported a reoperation rate of 17 % [2]. These findings have been interpreted to imply that operations for pelvic floor disorders have high failure rates. In recent years, new surgical concepts and procedures for treatment of prolapse have been developed and brought to market. One justification for the new techniques is the assumption of poor long-term results with established operations, as in the Olsen study. However, results for incontinence and prolapse surgery are often lumped together, and few studies have addressed long-term re-operation rates for prolapse after primary surgery for prolapse [3, 4]....