Patient perspectives in adverse event reporting after vaginal apical prolapse surgery.

BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials use systematic methodology to monitor adverse events and determine grade (severity), expectedness, and relatedness to treatments as determined by clinicians. However, patient perspectives are often not included in this process. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare clinician vs patient grading of adverse event severity in a urogynecologic surgical trial. Secondary objectives were to estimate the association of patient grading of adverse events with decision-making and quality of life outcomes and to determine if patient perspective changes over time. STUDY DESIGN: This was a planned supplementary study (Patient Perspectives in Adverse Event Reporting [PPAR]) to a randomized trial comparing 3 surgical approaches to vaginal apical prolapse. In the parent trial, adverse events experienced by patients were collected per a standardized protocol every 6 months during which clinicians graded adverse event severity (mild, moderate, severe/life-threatening). In this substudy, we obtained additional longitudinal patient perspectives for 19 predetermined "PPAR adverse events." Patients provided their own severity grading (mild, moderate, severe/very severe/life-threatening) at initial assessment and at 12 and 36 months postoperatively. Clinicians and patients were masked to each other's reporting. The primary outcome was the interrater agreement (kappa statistic) for adverse event severity between the initial clinician and patient assessment, combining patient grades of mild and moderate. The association between adverse event severity and the Decision Regret Scale, Satisfaction with Decision Scale, the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey, and Patient Global Impression of Improvement scores was assessed using the Spearman correlation coefficient (ρ) for continuous scales, the Mantel-Haenszel chi-square test for Patient Global Impression of Improvement, and t tests or chi-square tests comparing the assessments of patients who rated their adverse events or symptoms as severe with those who gave other ratings. To describe patient perspective changes over time, the intraobserver agreement was estimated for adverse event severity grade over time using weighted kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Of the 360 randomly assigned patients, 219 (61%) experienced a total of 527 PPAR adverse events (91% moderate and 9% severe/life-threatening by clinician grading). Mean patient age was 67 years; 87% were White and 12% Hispanic. Among the patients reporting any PPAR event, the most common were urinary tract infection (61%), de novo urgency urinary incontinence (35%), stress urinary incontinence (22%), and fecal incontinence (13%). Overall agreement between clinician and participant grading of severity was poor (kappa=0.24 [95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.34]). Of the 414 adverse events that clinicians graded as moderate, patients graded 120 (29%) as mild and 80 (19%) as severe. Of the 39 adverse events graded as severe by clinicians, patients graded 15 (38%) as mild or moderate. Initial patient grading of the most severe reported adverse event was mildly correlated with worse Decision Regret Scale (ρ=0.2; P=.01), 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (ρ=-0.24; P<.01), and Patient Global Impression of Improvement (P<.01) scores. There was no association between adverse event severity and Satisfaction with Decision Scale score. Patients with an initial grading of "severe" had more regret, lower quality of life, and poorer global impressions of health than those whose worst severity grade was mild (P<.05). Agreement between the patients' initial severity ratings and their ratings at 12 months (kappa=0.48 [95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.58]) and 36 months (kappa=0.45 [95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.53]) was fair. CONCLUSION: Clinician and patient perceptions of adverse event severity are discordant. Worse severity from the patient perspective was associated with patient-centered outcomes. Including the patient perspective provides additional information for evaluating surgical procedures.

Noncongenital Vaginal Obliteration: Surgical Restoration of Vaginal Patency for GVHD.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To provide a brief overview of noncongenital causes of vaginal obliteration and stenosis, discuss a unique case of vaginal agglutination in a patient who developed genital graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) after receiving a bone marrow transplant (BMT), and present the steps of a laparoscopic total hysterectomy and lysis of vaginal adhesions that successfully restored vaginal patency without the need for grafting. DESIGN: This video gives an overview of noncongenital causes of vaginal obliteration with a focus on genital GVHD. SETTING: GVHD is a known possible complication of BMT. This condition can lead to vaginal obliteration, affecting sexual performance and quality of life. INTERVENTIONS: We discuss the clinical course of a 54-year-old female with history of acute monocytic leukemia treated with chemotherapy and a BMT. She subsequently developed genital GVHD with complete vaginal obliteration, precluding penetrative intercourse and causing pain, discomfort, and decreased quality of life. We present a combined laparoscopic and vaginal surgical procedure that allowed for the creation of a neovagina with a normal length and caliber. While grafting is sometimes necessary due to inflammation and scarring, we were able to avoid a graft by using a combined laparoscopic and vaginal approach, followed by restoration of continuity between the unaffected upper and lower vaginal tissues. CONCLUSION: GVHD can be quite debilitating for patients. A combined surgical approach is a feasible option for patients with complex pathology not amenable to simple transvaginal adhesiolysis. Surgical restoration of the vagina does not necessarily require the use of a graft if the anatomy is reestablished successfully. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Apical Suspension Repair for Vaginal Vault Prolapse: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal surgical repair of vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy remains undetermined. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of 3 surgical approaches for vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multisite, 3-arm, superiority and noninferiority randomized clinical trial. Outcomes were assessed biannually up to 60 months, until the last participant reached 36 months of follow-up. Settings included 9 clinical sites in the US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Between February 2016 and April 2019, women with symptomatic vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy who desired surgical correction were randomized. Data were analyzed from November 2022 to January 2023. Interventions: Mesh-augmented (either abdominally [sacrocolpopexy] or through a vaginal incision [transvaginal mesh]) vs transvaginal native tissue repair. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time until composite treatment failure (including retreatment for prolapse, prolapse beyond the hymen, or prolapse symptoms) evaluated with survival models. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported symptom-specific results, objective measures, and adverse events. Results: Of 376 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [8.7] years), 360 (96%) had surgery, and 296 (82%) completed follow-up. Adjusted 36-month failure incidence was 28% (95% CI, 20%-37%) for sacrocolpopexy, 29% (95% CI, 21%-38%) for transvaginal mesh, and 43% (95% CI, 35%-53%) for native tissue repair. Sacrocolpopexy was found to be superior to native tissue repair (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.57; 99% CI, 0.33-0.98; P = .01). Transvaginal mesh was not statistically superior to native tissue after adjustment for multiple comparisons (aHR, 0.60; 99% CI, 0.34-1.03; P = .02) but was noninferior to sacrocolpopexy (aHR, 1.05; 97% CI, 0-1.65; P = .01). All 3 surgeries resulted in sustained benefits in subjective outcomes. Mesh exposure rates were low (4 of 120 [3%] for sacrocolpopexy and 6 of 115 [5%] for transvaginal mesh) as were the rates of dyspareunia. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants undergoing apical repair for vaginal vault prolapse, sacrocolpopexy and transvaginal mesh resulted in similar composite failure rates at study completion; both had lower failure rates than native tissue repair, although only sacrocolpopexy met a statistically significant difference. Low rates of mesh complications and adverse events corroborated the overall safety of each approach. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02676973.