Changes in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery in the Last Decade among United States Urologists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Surgical correction of pelvic organ prolapse underwent transformation in the last decade. Training in pelvic organ prolapse surgery, the ease of mesh kit use, and Food and Drug Administration warnings about mesh have influenced practice patterns. We investigated trends in pelvic organ prolapse procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case logs of pelvic organ prolapse procedures, mesh use and pessary placement were obtained from the American Board of Urology for 2003 to 2012. We evaluated associations between surgeon characteristics and the use of pelvic organ prolapse procedures. RESULTS: Of 6,355 nonpediatric urologists applying for certification or recertification 2,192, representing a 10% annual sample of all urologists, reported performing pelvic organ prolapse procedures during the study period. The number of procedures increased steadily from 930 in 2003 to 6,978 in 2012. The number of colporrhaphies increased from 806 to 2,670 and the number of colpopexies increased from 32 to 1,414 between 2003 and 2012. The number of vaginal colpopexies increased from 24 to 1,016 during the study period. The number of sacrocolpopexies increased from 8 to 398 with exponential increases in laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (282 cases by 2012). Mesh insertion increased from 10 cases reported by applicants in 2005 to 1,552 reported in 2012 (p <0.0005). Mesh revision, first reported in 2007 with 52 performed, consistently increased to 214 in 2012. Urologists trained in female urology performed a median of 16 pelvic organ prolapse procedures, double the number reported by surgeons trained in other urological fellowships. Urologists of the female gender also reported performing approximately 8 more procedures annually than male urologists. CONCLUSIONS: The number of pelvic organ prolapse operations done by urologists increased dramatically in the last decade with a similar increase in mesh use. More colpopexies are now performed with laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy showing an exponential increase. The recent trend of mesh revision is notable with a much faster rate of increase than mesh insertion.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".