Complications of obliterative versus reconstructive vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse in octogenarians: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Women of advanced age may choose between restorative or obliterative surgery for surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse. Obliterative surgery is traditionally reserved for a subset of older women with more severe medical comorbidities, since obliterative approaches are generally considered to be less morbid and older individuals have higher rates of perioperative complications than younger cohorts. This study compared perioperative complications amongst octogenarians undergoing obliterative versus reconstructive approaches. This data will help to inform perioperative counselling as previous studies have not been powered to evaluate complications in this population. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify patients that had Pelvic organ prolapse surgery between 2012 and 2021, aged 80 years or older. Single-compartment procedures, vaginal mesh procedures, and oncologic surgery were excluded. The primary outcome was any complication within the first 30 days excluding urinary tract infection (UTI). UTI, readmission, and severe complications were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 4149 patients identified, 2514 (60.6%) underwent reconstructive surgery and 1635 (39.4%) underwent obliterative surgery. Patients undergoing reconstructive surgery were more likely to have an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class of 1 or 2 (46.1% vs. 31.3%, p = 0.002) and were less likely to be on antihypertensive medication (72.0% vs. 75.8%, p = 0.006). Further, there was an increased length of stay (1.47 ± 1.84 vs. 1.03 ± 1.31 days, p < 0.001) in hospital for reconstructive surgery which was more often performed as an inpatient (45.7% vs. 37.9%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the primary outcome: any complication excluding UTIs. However, UTI was more common in the reconstructive group (aOR 0.48; 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.0). The rate of serious complications (Clavien-Dindo Class IV) was low overall and not different between reconstructive and obliterative approaches (1.3% vs. 1.0%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both vaginal reconstructive and obliterative approaches have low complication rates in octogenarians, with only UTI rate being different between cohorts. When choosing surgical approach, we suggest a case-based, patient center discussion on the anatomic outcomes, durability and patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".