Pelvic Organ Prolapse treatments: what would Gynaecologists opt for?
Main Article Content
Abstract
A quantitative questionnaire based study was carried out to assess how acceptable the various treatments for pelvic organ prolapse are to female obstetrics and Gynaecology trainees and consultants. Uptake for vaginal pessaries was low. Majority of respondents would accept conventional surgery for primary treatment and seem to be less keen to have vaginal mesh implants for surgery. This study highlights the complexity of decision making for treatment for prolapse even for group of women who are relatively verse with the subject. It is therefore absolute essential to have insight into how women perceive the acceptability of these treatments and their associated complications.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Committee Opinion No. 513. 2011. Vaginal placement of synthetic mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118: 1459–64.
3. Cundiff et al 2000. A survey of use of pessary by members of the American urogynaecology society,obstet Gynaecol Jun;95:931-5
4. Chmielewski L, Walters MD, Weber AM, Barber MD. 2011. Reanalysis of a randomized trial of 3 techniques of anterior colporrhaphy using clinically relevant definitions of success. Am J Obstet Gynecol ;205:69. e1–69.e8
5. Food and Drug Administration. FDA safety communication: UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2011. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm262435.htm. Retrieved July 27, 2011.
6 .FDA public health notification: serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Silver Spring (MD): FDA; 2008.
Available at: http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm061976.htm. Retrieved June 2, 2011.
7. Gorti M , Hudelist G, Simons A.2009. Evaluation of vaginal pessary managment: a UK based survey.J Obstet Gynaecol. Feb 29(2):129-31
8. Heit M, Rosenquist C, Culligan P, Graham C, Murphy M, Scott S: 2003 . Predicting treatment choice for patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol ;101:1279–1284
9. John P.F.A Heesakkers and Mark E. Vierhout. Prolapse surgery :which technique and when? Curr Opinion Ur21:281-285
10. Junemann KP. 2001. The management of female urinary stress incontinence: The use of devices. BJU International 87:449–455
11. Kuhn A, Bapst D, Stadlmayr W, Vits K, Mueller MD. 2008. Sexual and organ function in patients with symptomatic prolapse: are pessaries helpful? Fertility and Sterility
12. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Interventional Procedure Guideline 284.
13. Roehl B, Buchanan EM. 2006. Urinary incontinence evaluation and the utility of pessaries in older women. Care Management Journal 7:213–217.
14. Thys S.D, Roovers J.P.,Geomini P.M., Bongers M.Y. 2012. Do Patients Prefer a Pessary or Surgery as Primary Treatment for Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Gynecol Obstet Invest ; 74:6-12
15. Una Lee and Shlomo Raz 2011. Emerging Concepts for Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery: What is Cure? . Curr Urol Rep. 2011 February; 12(1): 62–67.
16. Weber AM, Walters MD, Piedmonte MR, Ballard LA. 2001. Anterior colporrhaphy: a randomized trial of three surgical techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol ;185:1299–304; discussion 1304–6.