Surgical approach and unplanned readmission following pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a retrospective cohort study using data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database (NSQIP)
International Urogynecology Journal, ISSN: 1433-3023, Vol: 32, Issue: 4, Page: 945-953
2021
- 4Citations
- 15Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations4
- Citation Indexes4
- Captures15
- Readers15
- 15
Article Description
Introduction and hypothesis: To define the reasons for hospital readmissions following surgery for pelvic organ prolapse by surgical approach. Methods: Patients undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse from 2012 to 2018 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases codes. Hazard risks of readmission by surgical approach (vaginal, laparoscopic, abdominal, or combined) were determined by multivariable cox regression. Diagnoses and timing of readmission by surgical approach were examined. Results: Of 57,233 women undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse during the study period, 1073 (1.9%) were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days postoperatively. After adjusting for prespecified potential confounders, laparoscopic and abdominal surgical approaches were associated with higher risks of readmission relative to a vaginal approach (aHR 1.30, 95% CI 1.08–1.57, and 1.97, 95% CI 1.44–2.71, respectively). The most common reason for readmission was a gastrointestinal issue among those undergoing both laparoscopic (28.0%) and abdominal surgery (30.2%). Surgical site infection was the most common readmission diagnosis among women undergoing vaginal surgery (16.2%). Of the 418 women readmitted within 7 days of surgery, the most common diagnoses were gastrointestinal issues (26.6%), medical disorders (12.0%), or surgical complications (e.g., bleeding) (11.0%). Conclusions: Women undergoing laparoscopic or abdominal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse were at higher risk of readmission relative to those undergoing surgery via a vaginal approach. The reasons and timing of readmission differed based on surgical approach.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85089786136&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04505-z; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32840658; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00192-020-04505-z; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04505-z; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00192-020-04505-z
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know