Global surgery, obstetric, and anaesthesia indicator definitions and reporting: An Utstein consensus report.

BACKGROUND: Indicators to evaluate progress towards timely access to safe surgical, anaesthesia, and obstetric (SAO) care were proposed in 2015 by the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery. These aimed to capture access to surgery, surgical workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality rate, and catastrophic and impoverishing financial consequences of surgery. Despite being rapidly taken up by practitioners, data points from which to derive the indicators were not defined, limiting comparability across time or settings. We convened global experts to evaluate and explicitly define-for the first time-the indicators to improve comparability and support achievement of 2030 goals to improve access to safe affordable surgical and anaesthesia care globally. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Utstein process for developing and reporting guidelines through a consensus building process was followed. In-person discussions at a 2-day meeting were followed by an iterative process conducted by email and virtual group meetings until consensus was reached. The meeting was held between June 16 to 18, 2019; discussions continued until August 2020. Participants consisted of experts in surgery, anaesthesia, and obstetric care, data science, and health indicators from high-, middle-, and low-income countries. Considering each of the 6 indicators in turn, we refined overarching descriptions and agreed upon data points needed for construction of each indicator at current time (basic data points), and as each evolves over 2 to 5 (intermediate) and >5 year (full) time frames. We removed one of the original 6 indicators (one of 2 financial risk protection indicators was eliminated) and refined descriptions and defined data points required to construct the 5 remaining indicators: geospatial access, workforce, surgical volume, perioperative mortality, and catastrophic expenditure. A strength of the process was the number of people from global institutes and multilateral agencies involved in the collection and reporting of global health metrics; a limitation was the limited number of participants from low- or middle-income countries-who only made up 21% of the total attendees. CONCLUSIONS: To track global progress towards timely access to quality SAO care, these indicators-at the basic level-should be implemented universally as soon as possible. Intermediate and full indicator sets should be achieved by all countries over time. Meanwhile, these evolutions can assist in the short term in developing national surgical plans and collecting more detailed data for research studies.

Hysteropexy compared to hysterectomy for uterine prolapse surgery: does durability differ?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of hysterectomy on durability of uterine prolapse repair by comparing hysterectomy/uterosacral cuff suspension (VH) to a new vaginal uterosacral hysteropexy (USH). METHODS: A retrospective chart review of uterine prolapse patients after USH or VH with concomitant procedures as indicated was conducted, analyzing Baden-Walker grading of apex, anterior, and posterior compartments (Kaplan-Meier analysis) Baden et al. (Tex Med 64(5):56-58, 1968). RESULTS: A total of 200 charts met criteria. USH women weighed less, were younger, and more constipated with larger rectoceles. Levator parameters did not differ Romanzi et al. (Neurourol Urodyn 18(6):603-612, 1999). Baden-Walker data were entered at recurrence or minimum of 6 months (2.4 months-10 years; median, 1.5 years). All-apex durability was 96.4%, with no difference between hysteropexy and cuff suspension (96.0% vs. 96.8%, p = 0.90), cystocele (86.8% vs. 93.8%, p = 0.31), or rectocele (97.8% vs. 100%, p = 0.16) at 2 years. CONCLUSION: In uterine prolapse patients, technically similar uterosacral hysteropexy durability did not differ from hysterectomy-based cuff suspension nor between cohorts for cystocele or rectocele.

Management of the urethral outlet in patients with severe prolapse.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Numbers of women seeking consultation for pelvic floor disorders, a large portion of which will involve pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and lower urinary tract dysfunction, are expected to reach epidemic proportions within the next decade. A full understanding of the complex impact of pelvic organ prolapse on lower urinary tract function is crucial to successful management. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent data lend support to the concept that women with POP, but no associated urethral dysfunction, may be best served by a surgical repair that carefully avoids dissection in the periurethral area. Conversely, preoperative evaluation will often reveal bladder outlet obstruction concomitant with 'hidden', 'potential', or 'occult' stress urinary incontinence when the prolapse is reduced. Many of these women will not have incontinence symptoms in daily life. Paradoxically, the mechanical bladder outlet obstruction may induce detrusor instability with subsequent obstructed/overactive bladder symptom complexes not dissimilar to those of men with prostatic bladder outlet obstruction. Anatomic research shows that the vessels and nerves supplying the urethra are particulary vulnerable to surgical techniques used in pelvic organ prolapse repair. SUMMARY: This mix of obstructed, overactive bladder with hidden stress incontinence increases with degree of POP, and all women with severe prolapse will fair best if evaluated for all three conditions prior to surgical repair.