UroARC: A novel surgical risk calculator for older adults undergoing pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Surgeries for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are commonly performed in older adults, many of whom are also frail. A surgical risk calculator for older adults undergoing POP/SUI surgeries that incorporates frailty, a factor known to increase the risk of surgical complications, would be helpful for preoperative counseling but currently does not exist. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medicare Carrier, Outpatient, and MedPAR files were examined for beneficiaries undergoing POP and SUI surgery between 2014 and 2016. A total of 15 POP/SUI categories were examined. The Claims-Based Frailty Index (CFI), a validated measure of frailty in Medicare data, and Charlson Comorbidity Index were deconstructed into their individual variables, and individual variables were entered into stepwise logistic regression models to determine which variables were most highly predictive of 30-day complications and 1-year mortality. To verify the prognostic accuracy for each model for surgical complications of interest, calibration curves and tests of model fit, including C-statistic, Brier scores, and Spiegelhalter p values, were determined. RESULTS: In total, 108 479 beneficiaries were included. Among these, 4.7% had CFI scores consistent with mild to severe frailty (CFI≥0.25). A total of 13 prognostic variable categories were found to be most highly predictive of postoperative complications. Calibration curves for each outcome of interest showed models were well-fit. Most models demonstrated high c-statistic values (≥0.7) and high Spiegelhalter p values (≥0.9), indicating good model calibration and excellent discrimination, and low Brier scores (<0.02), indicating high model accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Urologic surgery for older Adults Risk Calculator serves as a novel surgical risk calculator that is readily accessible to both patients and clinicians that specifically factors in components of frailty. Furthermore, this calculator accounts for the heterogeneity of an aging population and can assist in individualized surgical decision-making for these common procedures.

A randomized, prospective, controlled study comparing uterine preserving laparoscopic lateral suspension with mesh versus laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse.

OBJECTIVES: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) significantly affects women's quality of life, occurring in 20-30% of females aged over 20 globally. With aging populations, demand for pelvic reconstructive surgery is rising. Patients seek anatomical restoration while preserving uterus and sexual function. Sacrohysteropexy is the gold standard for apical prolapse, but carries risks. Lateral suspension, offers safer apical and anterior correction especially for obese, sexually active women. Our prospective study compares laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy and lateral suspension objectively and subjectively. STUDY DESIGN: The study included patients who had laparoscopic lateral suspension (n = 22) or laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (n = 22) for symptomatic stage 2 apical prolapse. Groups randomized with using block design. Anatomical cure was based on measurements taken by the same physician, unaware of intervention, before and at 12 months using POP-Q score. Pelvic floor ultrasound also used for objective rates. Subjective comparison used Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QoL), Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Symptom Score (POP-SS), Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Visual Analog Score (VAS), and Michigan Incontinence Severity Index (M-ISI). RESULTS: Age, BMI, parity, menopause, sexual activity, complications, showed no significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). Surgical procedure duration significantly varied between groups lateral suspension group was shorter. There was no significant difference in post operative complications. No significant differences in posterior/enterocele stages.) Anterior staging showed no significant difference in sacrouteropexy (p = 0.130), but significant difference in lateral suspension group (p < 0.001). No significant differences in pre-op and post-op PQOL, POP-SS, FSFI, and M-ISI scores between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Both methods effectively managed apical prolapse with similar outcomes. Objective measurements showed lateral suspension's superiority in reducing bladder descent.

Comparative analysis of early adverse events of pelvic organ prolapse repair with or without transvaginal mesh using Clavien-Dindo classification.

OBJECTIVE: To assess adverse events following surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with or without the use of transvaginal mesh. METHODS: The present retrospective study was conducted among women who underwent surgical POP repair at Soroka University Medical Center, Beer Sheva, Israel, between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2015. Patients underwent anterior and posterior colporrhaphy either with transvaginal mesh (Elevate Prolapse Repair System; American Medical Systems, Minnetonka, MN, USA) or without transvaginal mesh (native tissue repair). Perioperative adverse events were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo classification; multivariate regression models were constructed to predict minor and major adverse events. RESULTS: There were 111 women included; 35 were treated with transvaginal mesh, and 76 underwent native tissue repair. Women undergoing native tissue repair had a lower mean grade of cystocele (P=0.023) and a higher rate of urinary stress incontinence (P=0.017) than patients treated with transvaginal mesh. The duration of surgery (P=0.002), duration of hospitalization (P<0.001), and the amount of blood loss (P=0.021) were lower in the native tissue repair group. Repair with transvaginal mesh was not associated with increased odds of major or minor adverse events (P>0.05 for all models examined). CONCLUSION: Perioperative and postoperative adverse events were comparable regardless of the operative approach.

Native Tissue Prolapse Repairs: Comparative Effectiveness Trials.

This report reviews the success rates and complications of native tissue (nonmesh) vaginal reconstruction of pelvic organ prolapse by compartment. For apical prolapse, both uterosacral ligament suspensions and sacrospinous ligament fixations are effective and provided similar outcomes in anatomy and function with few adverse events. In the anterior compartment, traditional colporrhaphy technique is no different than ultralateral suturing. In the posterior compartment, transvaginal rectocele repair is superior to transanal repair. For uterine preservation, sacrospinous hysteropexy is not inferior to vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension for treatment of apical uterovaginal prolapse.