Antibiotic prophylaxis in posterior colporrhaphy does not reduce postoperative infection: a nationwide observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to explore if antibiotic prophylaxis prevents postoperative infection after a posterior colporrhaphy. METHODS: In this register-based nationwide cohort study data were collected from the "The Swedish National Quality Register of Gynecological Surgery" (GynOp). Women 18 years or older who underwent a primary posterior colporrhaphy between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2020 were included. Patients undergoing any concomitant prolapse procedure, mesh surgery, or incontinence procedure were excluded. The cohort was divided into two groups based on administration of antibiotic prophylaxis (n = 1,218) or not (n = 4,884). The primary outcome of this study was patient-reported infectious complication requiring antibiotic treatment. Secondary outcome measures included patient satisfaction and prolapse-related symptoms at 1 year postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 7,799 patients who underwent posterior colporrhaphy and met the inclusion criteria and did not meet the exclusion criteria were identified in the register database. Of these patients 6,102 answered the primary outcome question (79%). In the antibiotic prophylaxis group a total of 138 reported a postoperative infection (11%) and in the no antibiotic prophylaxis group the corresponding data were 520 (11%). There were no significant differences regarding either the primary or the secondary outcomes between the study groups. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide Swedish register study antibiotic prophylaxis was not associated with a reduced risk of postoperative infection after a posterior colporrhaphy.

Vaginal vault prolapse and recurrent surgery: A nationwide observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: In surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse the recurrence rate is about 30% and the importance of apical support was recently highlighted. In surgical randomized controlled studies, the external validity can be compromised because the surgical outcomes often depend on surgical volume. Therefore, we sought to study outcomes of surgical treatment in patients with vaginal vault prolapse in a nationwide setting with a variety of surgical volumes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a nationwide cohort study. All patients with a vaginal vault prolapse undergoing surgery, between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2018, were identified from the Swedish National Quality Register of Gynecological Surgery, GynOp. The primary outcome was the frequency of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse surgery within 2 years postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported vaginal bulging, operative time, estimated blood loss and 1-year postoperative complications. RESULTS: In 1812 patients with vaginal vault prolapse, 538 (30%) had a sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) with graft, 441 (24%) underwent SSLF without graft, and 200 (11%) underwent minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy (SCP) or sacrocervicopexy (SCerP). A significantly higher proportion of patients undergoing recurrent pelvic organ prolapse surgery was seen in SSLF without graft than in SSLF with graft (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.2, 95% CI 1.4-3.6). Patient-reported sensation of vaginal bulging 1 year after surgery was higher in the SSLF group without graft than in the SSLF group with graft (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.3-2.8) and in the SCP/SCerP group (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.4). Finally, we found a significantly higher rate of complications 1 year after surgery in SSLF without graft (aOR 2.3, 95% CI 1.2-4.2) and in SSLF with graft (aOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.2-4.2) compared with SCP/SCerP. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with vaginal vault prolapse, SSLF without graft was associated with a higher frequency of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse surgery compared with SSLF with graft, and a higher subjective relapse rate compared with SCP/SCerP and SSLF with graft. Additionally, the complication rate 1 year after primary surgery was higher in SSLF both with and without graft than in SCP/SCerP.

Recurrent surgery in uterine prolapse: A nationwide register study.

INTRODUCTION: One in three women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) undergoing surgery have a relapse. Currently, no optimal surgical treatment has been identified for correcting a uterine prolapse. This population-based register study aims to compare the relapse rate in patients with uterine prolapse undergoing hysterectomy with suspension or uterine-sparing surgical procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All women with uterine prolapse undergoing prolapse surgery in Sweden from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2018, were identified from the Gynecological Operation Register (GynOp). The primary outcome was the number of recurrent POP surgeries up to December 31, 2020. RESULTS: Sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSHP) without graft and sacrohysteropexy (SHP) were associated with a significantly higher rate of recurrent POP surgery (SSHP without graft: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.6, 95% CI 2.0-3.5; SHP aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.8-3.7) and patients describing a sense of globe (SSHP without graft, aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6-2.6; SHP, aOR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.1) compared with cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament fixation (Manchester procedure). There was no difference in the reoperation rate or sense of a globe between SSHP with graft and Manchester procedure. Patients undergoing SSHP without graft had a higher frequency of 1-year postoperative complications compared with Manchester procedure (aOR 2.0, 95% CI 1.6-2.6) and SHP (aOR 2.4, 95% CI 1.4-3.9). Moreover, the frequency of 1-year postoperative complications was higher in SSHP with graft (aOR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.2) than in Manchester procedure. CONCLUSIONS: The Manchester procedure was associated with a low rate of recurrent POP surgery, symptomatic recurrence and low surgical morbidity compared with other surgical methods in women with uterine prolapse.

Perineorrhaphy Compared With Pelvic Floor Muscle Therapy in Women With Late Consequences of a Poorly Healed Second-Degree Perineal Tear: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes after pelvic floor muscle therapy, as compared with perineorrhaphy and distal posterior colporrhaphy, in the treatment of women with a poorly healed second-degree obstetric injury diagnosed at least 6 months postpartum. METHODS: We performed a single center, open-label, randomized controlled trial. After informed consent, patients with a poorly healed second-degree perineal tear at minimum 6 months postpartum were randomized to either surgery or physical therapy. The primary outcome was treatment success, as defined by Patient Global Impression of Improvement, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory, the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Urinary Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Assuming a 60% treatment success in the surgery group and 20% in the physical therapy group, plus anticipating a 20% loss to follow-up, a total of 70 patients needed to be recruited. RESULTS: From October 2015 to June 2018, 70 of 109 eligible patients were randomized, half into surgery and half into tutored pelvic floor muscle therapy. The median age of the study group was 35 years, and the median duration postpartum at enrollment in the study was 10 months. There were three dropouts in the surgery group postrandomization. In an intention-to-treat analysis, with worst case imputation of missing outcomes, subjective global improvement was reported by 25 of 35 patients (71%) in the surgery group compared with 4 of 35 patients (11%) in the physical therapy group (treatment effect in percentage points 60% [95% CI 42-78%], odds ratio 19 [95% CI 5-69]). The surgery group was superior to physical therapy regarding all secondary endpoints. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment is effective and superior to pelvic floor muscle training in relieving symptoms related to a poorly healed second-degree perineal tear in women presenting at least 6 months postpartum. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02545218.

Associations Between Childbirth and Urinary Incontinence After Midurethral Sling Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether subsequent childbirths affect the outcomes of midurethral sling surgery with regard to stress urinary incontinence (SUI). METHODS: In this population-based cohort study, we used the validated Swedish nationwide health care registers (the Patient Register and the Medical Birth Register) to identify women with a delivery after midurethral sling surgery (n=207, study group). From the same registers we then randomly identified a control group who had no deliveries after their midurethral sling procedure (n=521, control group). The women in the control group were matched to the women in the study group by age and year of surgery. The Urogenital Distress Inventory and the Incontinence Impact Questionnaire were sent out to the study population. Symptomatic SUI was defined as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the total Urogenital Distress Inventory score, Urogenital Distress Inventory subscale scores, and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores. RESULTS: A total of 728 women were eligible for the study. The response rate was 74%; 163 in the study group (64 with vaginal delivery and 95 with cesarean delivery) and 374 women in the control group were included in the analysis. The rate of SUI (primary outcome) was 36 of 163 (22%) in the study group and 63 of 374 (17%) in the control group. In a multivariate regression analysis of the primary outcome, we found no significant difference between the groups (odds ratio [OR] 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-2.0). Vaginal childbirth after midurethral sling surgery did not increase the risk of SUI compared with cesarean delivery (22% vs 22%, OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.2-1.4). There were no significant differences in Urogenital Distress Inventory and Incontinence Impact Questionnaire scores between any of the groups. CONCLUSION: Childbirth after a midurethral sling procedure is not associated with an increased risk of patient-reported SUI, and continence status is not affected by the mode of a subsequent delivery.

Cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy: a population-based register study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Surgical management of uterine prolapse varies greatly and recently uterus-preserving techniques have been gaining popularity. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy, with or without concomitant anterior colporrhaphy, in women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse. METHOD: We carried out a population-based longitudinal cohort study with data from the Swedish National Quality Register for Gynecological Surgery. Between 2006 and 2013, a total of 3,174 patients with uterine prolapse were identified, who had undergone primary surgery with either cervical amputation or vaginal hysterectomy, with or without concomitant anterior colporrhaphy. Pre- and postoperative prolapse-related symptoms and patient satisfaction were assessed, in addition to complications and adverse events. Between-group comparisons were performed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in neither symptom relief nor patient satisfaction. In both groups a total of 81 % of the women reported the absence of vaginal bulging 1 year after surgery and a total of 89 % were satisfied with the result of the operation. The vaginal hysterectomy group had a higher rate of severe complications than the cervical amputation group, 1.9 % vs 0.2 % (p < 0.001). The vaginal hysterectomy group also had a longer duration of surgery and greater perioperative blood loss, in addition to longer hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical amputation seems to perform equally well in comparison to vaginal hysterectomy in the treatment of uterine prolapse, but with less morbidity and a lower rate of severe complications.

Does the choice of suture material matter in anterior and posterior colporrhaphy?

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The optimal suture material in traditional prolapse surgery is still controversial. Our aim was to investigate the effect of using sutures with rapid (RA) or slow (SA) absorption, on symptomatic recurrence after anterior and posterior colporrhaphy. METHODS: A population-based longitudinal cohort study with data from the Swedish National Quality Register for Gynecological Surgery. A total of 1,107 women who underwent primary anterior colporrhaphy and 577 women who underwent primary posterior colporrhaphy between September 2012 and September 2013 were included. Two groups in each cohort were created based on which suture material was used. Pre- and postoperative prolapse-related symptoms and patient satisfaction were assessed. RESULTS: We found a significantly lower rate of symptomatic recurrence 1 year after anterior colporrhaphy in the SA suture group compared with the RA suture group, 50 out of 230 (22 %) vs 152 out of 501 (30 %), odds ratio 1.6 (CI 1.1-2.3; p = 0.01). The SA group also had a significantly higher patient satisfaction rate, 83 % vs 75 %, odds ratio 1.6 (CI 1.04-2.4), (p = 0.03). Urgency improved significantly more in the RA suture group (p < 0.001). In the posterior colporrhaphy cohort there was no significant difference between the suture materials. CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates that the use of slowly absorbable sutures decreases the odds of having a symptomatic recurrence after an anterior colporrhaphy compared with the use of rapidly absorbable sutures. However, the use of RA sutures may result in less urgency 1 year postoperatively. In posterior colporrhaphy the choice of suture material does not affect postoperative symptoms.