1 Department of Clinical Medicine - Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University2 unknown3 Department of Clinical Medicine - Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Health, Aarhus University
age at hysterectomy, age at subsequent POP operation, and risk of POP after hysterectomy
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to describe the incidence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery after hysterectomy from 1977 to 2009, the time interval from hysterectomy to POP surgery, and age characteristics of women undergoing POP surgery after hysterectomy and to estimate the risk of undergoing POP surgery after hysterectomy. METHODS: The study was a population-based registry study. Patient data from 154,882 women hysterectomized for benign conditions in the period from 1977 to 2009 were extracted from the Danish National Patient Registry. Patients were followed up from hysterectomy to POP surgery, death/emigration, or end of study period. An estimate of the hazard of undergoing POP surgery following hysterectomy was calculated. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method. RESULTS: The frequency of POP surgery on hysterectomized women was high the first 2 years of the follow-up period with almost 800 women operated yearly. More than one third (n = 2,872) of all women operated for POP were operated less than 5 years after the hysterectomy with a median of 8.6 years. The cumulated incidence of POP surgery after hysterectomy with follow-up of up to 32 years was 12 %; 50 % (n = 5,451) of all POP surgeries were in the posterior compartment. The mean age of women undergoing a first POP surgery after hysterectomy was 60 years. CONCLUSIONS: POP after hysterectomy occurs as a long-term complication of hysterectomy; 12 % of hysterectomized women were operated for POP. They were operated at younger age than non-hysterectomized women and half the POP operations were performed in the posterior compartment.
International Urogynecology Journal, 2015, Vol 26, Issue 4, p. 527-32