{"paper_id":"1dc4458b-c136-4bc5-8522-33bdd6be4a15","body_text":"Abstract\nIntroduction and hypothesis\nThe aim of this study was to investigate whether the indication for hysterectomy was itself a risk factor for subsequent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in Danish women who underwent hysterectomy from 1977 to 2009.\nMethods\nData from 154,882 women who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions during the period 1977 – 2009 were extracted from the Danish National Patient Register. Patients were followed up from hysterectomy to POP surgery, death/emigration, or end of study period. Hazard ratios (HR) for the first POP surgery in each woman were calculated using the Cox proportional hazards model. Survival analysis for each indication for hysterectomy was performed using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method.\nResults\nFibroids/polyps as the indication was used as the reference when calculating HRs. After adjustment for calendar period, patient age, and hysterectomy route, the HR for POP was 6.57 (95 % confidence interval 5.91 – 7.30). The HR for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB), pain, endometriosis, and “other indications” was significantly higher than the reference. POP surgery was performed predominantly in the posterior compartment for all indications except benign ovarian tumors.\nConclusions\nPOP as the indication for hysterectomy was associated with the highest cumulative incidence of subsequent POP surgery 32 years after hysterectomy. But the indications AUB, pain, endometriosis, and “other indications” were associated with a higher risk of subsequent POP surgery after hysterectomy than the indication fibroids/polyps. The predominant compartment for POP surgery was the posterior compartment for almost all indications. The indication for hysterectomy and the compartment in which POP surgery was performed subsequent to hysterectomy were associated.\nSimilar content being viewed by others\nReferences\nLykke R, Blaakaer J, Ottesen B, Gimbel H (2013) Hysterectomy in Denmark 1977-2011: changes in rate, indications, and hospitalization. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 171:333–338. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.09.011\nLykke R, Blaakaer J, Ottesen B, Gimbel H (2015) Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery among Danish women hysterectomized for benign conditions: age at hysterectomy, age at subsequent POP operation, and risk of POP after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J 26:527–532. doi:10.1007/s00192-014-2490-y\nAltman D, Falconer C, Cnattingius S, Granath F (2008) Pelvic organ prolapse surgery following hysterectomy on benign indications. Am J Obstet Gynecol 198:572.e1–572.e6\nChow D, Rodriguez LV (2013) Epidemiology and prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse. Curr Opin Urol 23:293–298. doi:10.1097/MOU.0b013e3283619ed0\nMant J, Painter R, Vessey M (1997) Epidemiology of genital prolapse: observations from the Oxford Family Planning Association Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 104:579–585\nBlandon RE, Bharucha AE, Melton LJ 3rd, Schleck CD, Babalola EO, Zinsmeister AR et al (2007) Incidence of pelvic floor repair after hysterectomy: a population-based cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:664.e1–664.e7\nDallenbach P, Kaelin-Gambirasio I, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M (2007) Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse repair after hysterectomy. Obstet Gynecol 110:625–632\nDallenbach P, Kaelin-Gambirasio I, Jacob S, Dubuisson JB, Boulvain M (2008) Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse repair after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:1623–1629. doi:10.1007/s00192-008-0718-4\nLukanovic A, Drazic K (2010) Risk factors for vaginal prolapse after hysterectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 110:27–30. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.01.025\nForsgren C, Lundholm C, Johansson AL, Cnattingius S, Zetterstrom J, Altman D (2012) Vaginal hysterectomy and risk of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J 23:43–48. doi:10.1007/s00192-011-1523-z\nLidegaard O, Hammerum MS (2002) The National Patient Registry as a tool for continuous production and quality control. Ugeskr Laeger 164:4420–4423\nOttesen M (2009) Validity of the registration and reporting of vaginal prolapse surgery. Ugeskr Laeger 171:404–408\nBaird DD, Dunson DB (2003) Why is parity protective for uterine fibroids? Epidemiology 14:247–250. doi:10.1097/01.EDE.0000054360.61254.27\nCruikshank SH, Kovac SR (1999) Randomized comparison of three surgical methods used at the time of vaginal hysterectomy to prevent posterior enterocele. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:859–865\nFinancial support\nNone.\nConflicts of interest\nNone.\nAuthor information\nAuthors and Affiliations\nCorresponding author\nRights and permissions\nAbout this article\nCite this article\nLykke, R., Blaakær, J., Ottesen, B. et al. The indication for hysterectomy as a risk factor for subsequent pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J 26, 1661–1665 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2757-y\nReceived:\nAccepted:\nPublished:\nIssue date:\nDOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2757-y","source_license":"public-domain-us","license_restricted":false}