Does preoperative resting genital hiatus size predict surgical outcomes?
dc.contributor.author | Schmidt, Payton | |
dc.contributor.author | Cox, Caroline K. | |
dc.contributor.author | DeLancey, John O. | |
dc.contributor.author | Suresh, Shriya | |
dc.contributor.author | Horner, Whitney | |
dc.contributor.author | Chen, Luyun | |
dc.contributor.author | Swenson, Carolyn W. | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-12-02T02:31:47Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-12-01 21:31:46 | en |
dc.date.available | 2021-12-02T02:31:47Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021-11 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Schmidt, Payton; Cox, Caroline K.; DeLancey, John O.; Suresh, Shriya; Horner, Whitney; Chen, Luyun; Swenson, Carolyn W. (2021). "Does preoperative resting genital hiatus size predict surgical outcomes?." Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 47(11): 4023-4029. | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1341-8076 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1447-0756 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/171040 | |
dc.description.abstract | AimTo determine whether preoperative genital hiatus at rest is predictive of medium‐term prolapse recurrence.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective study of women who underwent native tissue prolapse surgery from 2002 to 2017 with pelvic organ prolapse quantification data including resting genital hiatus at one of three time points: preoperatively, 6 weeks, and ≥1 year postoperatively. Demographics and clinical data were abstracted from the chart. Prolapse recurrence was defined by anatomic outcomes (Ba > 0, Bp > 0, and/or C ≥ −4) or retreatment. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and logistic regression analyses were performed.ResultsOf the 165 women included, 36 (21.8%) had prolapse recurrence at an average of 1.5 years after surgery. Preoperative resting genital hiatus did not differ between women with surgical success versus recurrence (3.5 cm [interquartile range, IQR 2.25, 4.0) vs 3.5 cm (IQR 3.0, 4.0), p = 0.71). Point Bp was greater in the recurrence group at every time point. Preoperative Bp (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, confidence interval [CI] [1.06–1.45], p = 0.01) and days from surgery (OR 1.001, CI [1.000–1.001], p < 0.01) were independently associated with recurrence. Preoperative genital hiatus at rest and strain were significantly larger among women who underwent a colpoperineorrhaphy (rest: 4.0 [3.0, 4.5] cm vs 3.5 [3.0, 4.0] cm, p < 0.01; strain: 6.0 [4.0, 6.5] cm vs 5.0 [4.0, 6.0] cm, p = 0.01).ConclusionsPreoperative genital hiatus at rest was not associated with prolapse recurrence when the majority of women underwent colpoperineorrhaphy. Preoperative Bp was more predictive of short‐term prolapse recurrence. For every 1 cm increase in point Bp, there is a 24% increased odds of recurrence. | |
dc.publisher | John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd | |
dc.subject.other | pelvic organ prolapse | |
dc.subject.other | gynecologic surgical procedures | |
dc.subject.other | rectocele surgery | |
dc.subject.other | pelvic reconstructive surgery | |
dc.subject.other | pelvic organ prolapse surgery | |
dc.title | Does preoperative resting genital hiatus size predict surgical outcomes? | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Pediatrics | |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Obstetrics and Gynecology | |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171040/1/jog14993.pdf | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171040/2/jog14993_am.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/jog.14993 | |
dc.identifier.source | Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24: 1783 – 90. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Delancey JO, Hurd WW. Size of the urogenital hiatus in the levator ani muscles in normal women and women with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91: 364 – 8. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ashton‐Miller JA, DeLancey JO. Functional anatomy of the female pelvic floor. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007; 1101: 266 – 96. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Vergeldt TF, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 1559 – 73. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | DeLancey JO. Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 166: 1717 – 24. discussion 1724‐1718. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Carter‐Brooks CM, Lowder JL, Du AL, Lavelle ES, Giugale LE, Shepherd JP. Restoring genital hiatus to normative values after apical suspension alone versus with level 3 support procedures. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019; 25: 226 – 30. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bradley MS, Askew AL, Vaughan MH, Kawasaki A, Visco AG. Robotic‐assisted sacrocolpopexy: early postoperative outcomes after surgical reduction of enlarged genital hiatus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 514.e1 – 8. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Haylen BT, Avery D, Chiu TL, Birrell W. Posterior repair quantification (PR‐Q) using key anatomical indicators (KAI): preliminary report. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25: 1665 – 72. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence: systematic review and meta‐analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018; 29: 13 – 21. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Trowbridge ER, Fultz NH, Patel DA, DeLancey JO, Fenner DE. Distribution of pelvic organ support measures in a population‐based sample of middle‐aged, community‐dwelling African American and white women in southeastern Michigan. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 198: 548.e1 – 6. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Berger MB, Kolenic GE, Fenner DE, Morgan DM, DeLancey JOL. Structural, functional, and symptomatic differences between women with rectocele versus cystocele and normal support. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 218: 510.e1 – 8. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sutkin G, Zyczynski HM, Sridhar A, et al. Association between adjuvant posterior repair and success of native tissue apical suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 222: 161.e1 – 8. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ghetti C, Gregory WT, Edwards SR, Otto LN, Clark AL. Severity of pelvic organ prolapse associated with measurements of pelvic floor function. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005; 16: 432 – 6. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | DeLancey JO, Morgan DM, Fenner DE, et al. Comparison of levator ani muscle defects and function in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109: 295 – 302. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Handa VL, Roem J, Blomquist JL, Dietz HP, Munoz A. Pelvic organ prolapse as a function of levator ani avulsion, hiatus size, and strength. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 221: 41e41 – 7. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Visco AG, Wei JT, McClure LA, Handa VL, Nygaard IE, Pelvic Floor Disorders N. Effects of examination technique modifications on pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP‐Q) results. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003; 14: 136 – 40. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Vaughan MH, Siddiqui NY, Newcomb LK, Weidner AC, Kawasaki A, Visco AG, et al. Surgical alteration of genital hiatus size and anatomic failure after vaginal vault suspension. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131: 1137 – 44. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Vakili B, Zheng YT, Loesch H, Echols KT, Franco N, Chesson RR. Levator contraction strength and genital hiatus as risk factors for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 1592 – 8. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Lowder JL, Oliphant SS, Shepherd JP, Ghetti C, Sutkin G. Genital hiatus size is associated with and predictive of apical vaginal support loss. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214: 718.e1 – 8. | |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Medina CA, Candiotti K, Takacs P. Wide genital hiatus is a risk factor for recurrence following anterior vaginal repair. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008; 101: 184 – 7. | |
dc.working.doi | NO | en |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.