A UK questionnaire survey of current techniques used to perform pelvic organ prolapse repair

Introduction and hypothesis Evidence-based medicine should result in better standardisation of practice. This study aims to evaluate whether there remains variation in surgical techniques in native tissue and graft/mesh repairs of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in UK practice. Methods A questionnaire s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International Urogynecology Journal 2017-09, Vol.28 (9), p.1367-1376
Main Authors: Fairclough, Emily, Myers, Jenny, Smith, Anthony Ross Broadhurst, Breeman, Suzanne, Reid, Fiona
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Female
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - methods
Gynecologic Surgical Procedures - standards
Gynecology
Humans
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Middle Aged
Original
Original Article
Pelvic organ prolapse
Pelvic Organ Prolapse - surgery
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data
Pragmatic Clinical Trials as Topic
Prospective Studies
Questionnaires
Surgeons
Surgeons - standards
Surgeons - statistics & numerical data
Surgical Mesh
Surgical techniques
Surveys and Questionnaires
Suture Techniques
United Kingdom
Urology
Vagina - surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction and hypothesis Evidence-based medicine should result in better standardisation of practice. This study aims to evaluate whether there remains variation in surgical techniques in native tissue and graft/mesh repairs of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in UK practice. Methods A questionnaire survey was conducted to describe current surgical techniques for native tissue and graft/mesh POP repairs performed by a cohort of UK surgeons recruiting to a large multicentre prolapse trial (PROSPECT). Results The questionnaire return rate was 90% ( n  = 56 out of 62). Substantial variations in surgical techniques were seen at every step of the procedure. Native tissue repair: most surgeons used infiltration, 95% ( n  = 53 out of 56), but the volume used varied (10–80 ml). All but one surgeon performed a midline incision; this surgeon performed an elliptical incision. The depth of tissue dissection varied, being both above and below the vaginal muscularis (fascia). Fascial repair methods included midline, closure of separate fascial defects, paravaginal repair and rectal/levator plication. Graft/mesh repairs: many different products and manufacturers were used. There was variation in the method of attachment of graft/mesh inserts and their placement in relation to the fascia. For both native tissue and graft/mesh repairs, the method of fascial dissection, suturing methods and suture material varied. Most surgeons inserted a pack, 91% ( n  = 50 out of 55), soaked in varying substances before use. Conclusions There is considerable variation between UK-based surgeons in the surgical techniques used to perform both native tissue and graft/mesh-augmented POP repairs. Further research is required to determine whether these differences influence outcome.
ISSN:0937-3462
1433-3023
DOI:10.1007/s00192-017-3273-z