Utilization of apical vaginal support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy performed for benign conditions: a national estimate.

BACKGROUND: Apical vaginal support is considered the keystone of pelvic organ support. Level I evidence supports reestablishment of apical support at time of hysterectomy, regardless of whether the hysterectomy is performed for prolapse. National rates of apical support procedure performance at time of inpatient hysterectomy have not been well described. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate trends and factors associated with use of apical support procedures at time of inpatient hysterectomy for benign indications in a large national database. STUDY DESIGN: The National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample was used to identify hysterectomies performed from 2004 through 2013 for benign indications. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to select both procedures and diagnoses. The primary outcome was performance of an apical support procedure at time of hysterectomy. Descriptive and multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: There were 3,509,230 inpatient hysterectomies performed for benign disease from 2004 through 2013. In both nonprolapse and prolapse groups, there was a significant decrease in total number of annual hysterectomies performed over the study period (P < .0001). There were 2,790,652 (79.5%) hysterectomies performed without a diagnosis of prolapse, and an apical support procedure was performed in only 85,879 (3.1%). There was a significant decrease in the proportion of hysterectomies with concurrent apical support procedure (high of 4.0% in 2004 to 2.5% in 2013, P < .0001). In the multivariable logistic regression model, increasing age, hospital type (urban teaching), hospital bed size (large and medium), and hysterectomy type (vaginal and laparoscopically assisted vaginal) were associated with performance of an apical support procedure. During the study period, 718,578 (20.5%) inpatient hysterectomies were performed for prolapse diagnoses and 266,743 (37.1%) included an apical support procedure. There was a significant increase in the proportion of hysterectomies with concurrent apical support procedure (low of 31.3% in 2005 to 49.3% in 2013, P < .0001). In the multivariable logistic regression model, increasing age, hospital type (urban teaching), hospital bed size (medium and large), and hysterectomy type (total laparoscopic and laparoscopic supracervical) were associated with performance of an apical support procedure. CONCLUSION: This national database study demonstrates that apical support procedures are not routinely performed at time of inpatient hysterectomy regardless of presence of prolapse diagnosis. Educational efforts are needed to increase awareness of the importance of reestablishing apical vaginal support at time of hysterectomy regardless of indication.