Statewide geographic variation in hysterectomy approach for pelvic organ prolapse: a county-level analysis

Abstract

Background: There are no definitive guidelines for surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Previous data suggests geographic variation in apical repair rates in health systems throughout the United States. Such variation can reflect lack of standardized treatment pathways. An additional area of variation for pelvic organ prolapse repair may be hysterectomy approach which could not only influence concurrent repair procedures, but also healthcare utilization.

Objective: This study aimed to examine statewide geographic variation in surgical approach of hysterectomy for prolapse repair and concurrent use of colporrhaphy and colpopexy.

Study design: We conducted a retrospective analysis of Blue Cross Blue Shield, Medicare, and Medicaid fee-for-service insurance claims for hysterectomies performed for prolapse in Michigan between October 2015 and December 2021. Prolapse was identified with International Classification of Disease Tenth Revision codes. The primary outcome was variation in surgical approach for hysterectomy as determined by Current Procedural Terminology code (vaginal, laparoscopic, laparoscopic assisted vaginal, or abdominal) on a county level. Patient home address zip codes were used to determine county of residence. A hierarchical multivariable logistic regression model with vaginal approach as the dependent variable and county-level random effects was estimated. Patient attributes, including age, comorbidities (diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, congestive heart failure, morbid obesity), concurrent gynecologic diagnoses, health insurance type, and social vulnerability index were used as fixed-effects. To estimate variation between counties in vaginal hysterectomy rates, a median odds ratio was calculated.

Results: There were 6974 hysterectomies for prolapse representing 78 total counties that met eligibility criteria. Of these, 2865 (41.1%) underwent vaginal hysterectomy, 1119 (16.0%) underwent laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy, and 2990 (42.9%) underwent laparoscopic hysterectomy. The proportion of vaginal hysterectomy across 78 counties ranged from 5.8% to 86.8%. The median odds ratio was 1.86 (95% credible interval, 1.33-3.83), consistent with a high level of variation. Thirty-seven counties were considered statistical outliers because the observed proportion of vaginal hysterectomy was outside the predicted range (as defined by confidence intervals of the funnel plot). Vaginal hysterectomy was associated with higher rates of concurrent colporrhaphy than laparoscopic assisted vaginal hysterectomy or laparoscopic hysterectomy (88.5% vs 65.6% vs 41.1%, respectively; P<.001) and lower rates of concurrent colpopexy (45.7% vs 51.7% vs 80.1%, respectively; P<.001).

Conclusion: This statewide analysis reveals a significant level of variation in the surgical approach for hysterectomies performed for prolapse. The variation in surgical approach for hysterectomy may help account for high rates of variation in concurrent procedures, especially apical suspension procedures. These data highlight how geographic location may influence the surgical procedures a patient undergoes for uterine prolapse.

Keywords: geographic variation; healthcare utilization; hysterectomy; pelvic organ prolapse.