Advertisement

Postoperative complications and pelvic organ prolapse recurrence following combined pelvic organ prolapse and rectal prolapse surgery compared with pelvic organ prolapse only surgery

      Background

      There is a growing interest in combined pelvic organ prolapse and rectal prolapse surgery for concomitant pelvic floor prolapse despite a paucity of data regarding complications and clinical outcomes of combined repair.

      Objective

      The primary objective of this study was to compare the <30-day postoperative complication rate in women undergoing combined POP + RP surgery with that of women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery. The secondary objectives were to describe the <30-day postoperative complications, compare the pelvic organ prolapse recurrence between the 2 groups, and determine the preoperative predictors of <30-day postoperative complications and predictors of pelvic organ prolapse recurrence.

      Study Design

      This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study at 5 academic hospitals. Patients undergoing combined pelvic organ prolapse and rectal prolapse surgery were matched by age, pelvic organ prolapse stage by leading compartment, and pelvic organ prolapse procedure compared with those undergoing pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery from March 2003 to March 2020. The primary outcome measure was <30-day complications separated into Clavien-Dindo classes. The secondary outcome measures were (1) subsequent pelvic organ prolapse surgeries and (2) pelvic organ prolapse recurrence, defined as patients who complained of vaginal bulge symptoms postoperatively.

      Results

      Overall, 204 women underwent combined surgery for pelvic organ prolapse and rectal prolapse, and 204 women underwent surgery for pelvic organ prolapse only. The average age (59.3±1.0 vs 59.0±1.0) and mean parity (2.3±1.5 vs 2.6±1.8) were similar in each group. Of note, 109 (26.7%) patients had at least one <30-day postoperative complication. The proportion of patients who had a complication in the combined surgery group and pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery group was similar (27.5% vs 26.0%; P=.82). The Clavien-Dindo scores were similar between the groups (grade I, 10.3% vs 9.3%; grade II, 11.8% vs 12.3%; grade III, 3.9% vs 4.4%; grade IV, 1.0% vs 0%; grade V, 0.5% vs 0%). Patients undergoing combined surgery were less likely to develop postoperative urinary tract infections and urinary retention but were more likely to be treated for wound infections and pelvic abscesses than patients undergoing pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery. After adjusting for combined surgery vs pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery and parity, patients who had anti-incontinence procedures (adjusted odds ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.16–2.94; P=.02) and perineorrhaphies (adjusted odds ratio, 1.68; 95% confidence interval, 1.05–2.70; P=.02) were more likely to have <30-day postoperative complications. Of note, 12 patients in the combined surgery group and 15 patients in the pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery group had subsequent pelvic organ prolapse repairs (5.9% vs 7.4%; P=.26). In the combined surgery group, 10 patients (4.9%) underwent 1 repair, and 2 patients (1.0%) underwent 2 repairs. All patients who had recurrent pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery group had 1 subsequent pelvic organ prolapse repair. Of note, 21 patients in the combined surgery group and 28 patients in the pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery group reported recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (10.3% vs 13.7%; P=.26). On multivariable analysis adjusted for number of previous pelvic organ prolapse repairs, combined surgery vs pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery, and perineorrhaphy at the time of surgery, patients were more likely to have a subsequent pelvic organ prolapse surgery if they had had ≥2 previous pelvic organ prolapse repairs (adjusted odds ratio, 6.06; 95% confidence interval, 2.10–17.5; P=.01). The average follow-up times were 307.2±31.5 days for the combined surgery cohort and 487.7±49.9 days for the pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery cohort. Survival curves indicated that the median time to recurrence was not statistically significant (log-rank, P=.265) between the combined surgery group (4.2±0.4 years) and the pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery group (5.6±0.4 years).

      Conclusion

      In this retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing combined pelvic organ prolapse and rectal prolapse surgery had a similar risk of <30-day postoperative complications compared with patients undergoing pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery. Furthermore, patients who underwent combined surgery had a similar risk of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse and subsequent pelvic organ prolapse surgery compared with patients who underwent pelvic organ prolapse–only surgery.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Altman D.
        • Zetterstrom J.
        • Schultz I.
        • et al.
        Pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence in women with surgically managed rectal prolapse: a population-based case-control study.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2006; 49: 28-35
        • Naldini G.
        • Fabiani B.
        • Sturiale A.
        • Simoncini T.
        Complex pelvic organ prolapse: decision-making algorithm.
        Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019; 34: 189-192
        • Geltzeiler C.B.
        • Birnbaum E.H.
        • Silviera M.L.
        • et al.
        Combined rectopexy and sacrocolpopexy is safe for correction of pelvic organ prolapse.
        Int J Colorectal Dis. 2018; 33: 1453-1459
        • Tou S.
        • Brown S.R.
        • Nelson R.L.
        Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 2015: CD001758
      1. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2013:CD004014.

        • Siddiqui N.Y.
        • Grimes C.L.
        • Casiano E.R.
        • et al.
        Mesh sacrocolpopexy compared with native tissue vaginal repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 125: 44-55
        • Wallace S.
        • Gurland B.
        Approaching combined rectal and vaginal prolapse.
        Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2022; 34: 302-310
        • Jallad K.
        • Ridgeway B.
        • Paraiso M.F.R.
        • Gurland B.
        • Unger C.A.
        Long-term outcomes after ventral rectopexy with sacrocolpo- or hysteropexy for the treatment of concurrent rectal and pelvic organ prolapse.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2018; 24: 336-340
        • VanderPas Lamb S.
        • Massengill J.
        • Sheridan M.J.
        • Stern L.E.
        • von Pechmann W.
        Safety of combined abdominal sacral colpopexy and sigmoid resection with suture rectopexy: a retrospective cohort study.
        Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015; 21: 18-24
        • Bump R.C.
        • Mattiasson A.
        • Bø K.
        • et al.
        The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 10-17
        • Dindo D.
        • Demartines N.
        • Clavien P.A.
        Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.
        Ann Surg. 2004; 240: 205-213
        • Bretschneider C.E.
        • Sheyn D.
        • Mahajan S.
        • Propst K.
        • Ridgeway B.
        Complications following vaginal colpopexy for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32: 993-999
        • Kim D.S.
        • Tsang C.B.
        • Wong W.D.
        • Lowry A.C.
        • Goldberg S.M.
        • Madoff R.D.
        Complete rectal prolapse: evolution of management and results.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 1999; 42 (discussion 466–9): 460-466
        • Madiba T.E.
        • Baig M.K.
        • Wexner S.D.
        Surgical management of rectal prolapse.
        Arch Surg. 2005; 140: 63-73
        • Blumetti J.
        • Luu M.
        • Sarosi G.
        • et al.
        Surgical site infections after colorectal surgery: do risk factors vary depending on the type of infection considered?.
        Surgery. 2007; 142: 704-711
        • Mahdi H.
        • Goodrich S.
        • Lockhart D.
        • DeBernardo R.
        • Moslemi-Kebria M.
        Predictors of surgical site infection in women undergoing hysterectomy for benign gynecologic disease: a multicenter analysis using the national surgical quality improvement program data.
        J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2014; 21: 901-909
        • Unger C.A.
        • Paraiso M.F.
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Barber M.D.
        • Ridgeway B.
        Perioperative adverse events after minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211: 547.e1-547.e8
        • van Iersel J.J.
        • de Witte C.J.
        • Verheijen P.M.
        • et al.
        Robot-assisted sacrocolporectopexy for multicompartment prolapse of the pelvic floor: a prospective cohort study evaluating functional and sexual outcome.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2016; 59: 968-974
        • Campagna G.
        • Panico G.
        • Caramazza D.
        • et al.
        Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy plus ventral rectopexy as combined treatment for multicompartment pelvic organ prolapse.
        Tech Coloproctol. 2020; 24: 573-584
        • Speed J.M.
        • Zhang C.A.
        • Gurland B.
        • Enemchukwu E.
        Trends in the diagnosis and management of combined rectal and vaginal pelvic organ prolapse.
        Urology. 2021; 150: 188-193
        • van Zanten F.
        • van der Schans E.M.
        • Consten E.C.J.
        • et al.
        Long-term anatomical and functional results of robot-assisted pelvic floor surgery for the management of multicompartment prolapse: a prospective study.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2020; 63: 1293-1301
        • Reddy J.
        • Ridgeway B.
        • Gurland B.
        • Paraiso M.F.
        Robotic sacrocolpoperineopexy with ventral rectopexy for the combined treatment of rectal and pelvic organ prolapse: initial report and technique.
        J Robot Surg. 2011; 5: 167-173
        • Jallad K.
        • Barber M.D.
        • Ridgeway B.
        • Paraiso M.F.
        • Unger C.A.
        The effect of surgical start time in patients undergoing minimally invasive sacrocolpopexy.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27: 1535-1539
        • Ayav A.
        • Bresler L.
        • Brunaud L.
        • Zarnegar R.
        • Boissel P.
        Surgical management of combined rectal and genital prolapse in young patients: transabdominal approach.
        Int J Colorectal Dis. 2005; 20: 173-179
        • Collopy B.T.
        • Barham K.A.
        Abdominal colporectopexy with pelvic cul-de-sac closure.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2002; 45 (discussion 526–9): 522-526
        • Kiyasu Y.
        • Tsunoda A.
        • Takahashi T.
        • Nomura M.
        Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy with sacrocolpopexy for coexisting pelvic organ prolapse and external rectal prolapse.
        J Anus Rectum Colon. 2018; 1: 141-146
        • Lim M.
        • Sagar P.M.
        • Gonsalves S.
        • Thekkinkattil D.
        • Landon C.
        Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in females: functional outcome of mesh sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy as a combined procedure.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2007; 50: 1412-1421
        • Popp L.
        • Augustin A.
        Pelvic floor-lifting: an interdisciplinary repair of combined rectal and vaginal prolapse-5 years experience.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013; 288: 83-90
        • Riansuwan W.
        • Hull T.L.
        • Bast J.
        • Hammel J.P.
        Combined surgery in pelvic organ prolapse is safe and effective.
        Colorectal Dis. 2010; 12: 188-192
        • Sagar P.M.
        • Thekkinkattil D.K.
        • Heath R.M.
        • Woodfield J.
        • Gonsalves S.
        • Landon C.R.
        Feasibility and functional outcome of laparoscopic sacrocolporectopexy for combined vaginal and rectal prolapse.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2008; 51: 1414-1420
        • Slawik S.
        • Soulsby R.
        • Carter H.
        • Payne H.
        • Dixon A.R.
        Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy, posterior colporrhaphy and vaginal sacrocolpopexy for the treatment of recto-genital prolapse and mechanical outlet obstruction.
        Colorectal Dis. 2008; 10: 138-143
        • Wallace S.L.
        • Syan R.
        • Enemchukwu E.A.
        • Mishra K.
        • Sokol E.R.
        • Gurland B.
        Surgical approach, complications, and reoperation rates of combined rectal and pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
        Int Urogynecol J. 2020; 31: 2101-2108
        • Watadani Y.
        • Vogler S.A.
        • Warshaw J.S.
        • et al.
        Sacrocolpopexy with rectopexy for pelvic floor prolapse improves bowel function and quality of life.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2013; 56: 1415-1422
        • Yang S.J.
        • Yoon S.G.
        • Lim K.Y.
        • Lee J.K.
        Laparoscopic vaginal suspension and rectopexy for rectal prolapse.
        Ann Coloproctol. 2017; 33: 64-69
        • Jelovsek J.E.
        • Barber M.D.
        • Brubaker L.
        • et al.
        Effect of uterosacral ligament suspension vs sacrospinous ligament fixation with or without perioperative behavioral therapy for pelvic organ vaginal prolapse on surgical outcomes and prolapse symptoms at 5 years in the OPTIMAL randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA. 2018; 319: 1554-1565