Cargando…

Surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objectives were to explore the views of women with recurrent stress incontinence (SUI) with regard to treatment preferences and the acceptability of randomisation to a future trial, and to survey the views of UK specialists on treatment preferences and equipoise rega...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tincello, Douglas G., Armstrong, Natalie, Hilton, Paul, Buckley, Brian, Mayne, Christopher
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer London 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754391/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28577173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3376-6
_version_ 1783290405519884288
author Tincello, Douglas G.
Armstrong, Natalie
Hilton, Paul
Buckley, Brian
Mayne, Christopher
author_facet Tincello, Douglas G.
Armstrong, Natalie
Hilton, Paul
Buckley, Brian
Mayne, Christopher
author_sort Tincello, Douglas G.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objectives were to explore the views of women with recurrent stress incontinence (SUI) with regard to treatment preferences and the acceptability of randomisation to a future trial, and to survey the views of UK specialists on treatment preferences and equipoise regarding different treatment alternatives. METHODS: An online survey of the British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) and British Society of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) was carried out. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of surgeons and women suffering from recurrent SUI from three UK centres. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-six survey replies were received (176 gynaecology; 80 urology). Comparing the treatments offered, urogynaecologists were more likely to offer pelvic floor exercises (p < 0.05), and repeat midurethral tape (MUT) (p < 0.001). From the Surgical Equipoise Scale (SES) responses, “no preference” was rarely the commonest response. Marked differences for several options existed; midurethral tape dominated responses whenever it appeared. Twenty-one clinicians were interviewed. Treatment preferences were complex, influenced by a range of factors (reason for failure, patient comorbidity, investigations, personal experience, training). A future trial was regarded as important. Eleven women were interviewed. Most had considered more than one option, but felt that decision-making was more a process of elimination rather than a positive process. Randomisation to a study was regarded as unacceptable by most. CONCLUSIONS: No consensus exists among surgeons about preferred treatment options for recurrent SUI, and personal experience and training dominate decision-making. For patients, choices were usually based on an elimination of options, including that of a repeat failed procedure. This contrasts with surgeons, who mostly preferred a repeat MUT above other options. Any future comparative study will be challenging.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5754391
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer London
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57543912018-01-30 Surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women Tincello, Douglas G. Armstrong, Natalie Hilton, Paul Buckley, Brian Mayne, Christopher Int Urogynecol J Original Article INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objectives were to explore the views of women with recurrent stress incontinence (SUI) with regard to treatment preferences and the acceptability of randomisation to a future trial, and to survey the views of UK specialists on treatment preferences and equipoise regarding different treatment alternatives. METHODS: An online survey of the British Society of Urogynaecology (BSUG) and British Society of Urological Surgeons (BAUS) was carried out. Qualitative semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of surgeons and women suffering from recurrent SUI from three UK centres. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-six survey replies were received (176 gynaecology; 80 urology). Comparing the treatments offered, urogynaecologists were more likely to offer pelvic floor exercises (p < 0.05), and repeat midurethral tape (MUT) (p < 0.001). From the Surgical Equipoise Scale (SES) responses, “no preference” was rarely the commonest response. Marked differences for several options existed; midurethral tape dominated responses whenever it appeared. Twenty-one clinicians were interviewed. Treatment preferences were complex, influenced by a range of factors (reason for failure, patient comorbidity, investigations, personal experience, training). A future trial was regarded as important. Eleven women were interviewed. Most had considered more than one option, but felt that decision-making was more a process of elimination rather than a positive process. Randomisation to a study was regarded as unacceptable by most. CONCLUSIONS: No consensus exists among surgeons about preferred treatment options for recurrent SUI, and personal experience and training dominate decision-making. For patients, choices were usually based on an elimination of options, including that of a repeat failed procedure. This contrasts with surgeons, who mostly preferred a repeat MUT above other options. Any future comparative study will be challenging. Springer London 2017-06-02 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5754391/ /pubmed/28577173 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3376-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Tincello, Douglas G.
Armstrong, Natalie
Hilton, Paul
Buckley, Brian
Mayne, Christopher
Surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women
title Surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women
title_full Surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women
title_fullStr Surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women
title_full_unstemmed Surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women
title_short Surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women
title_sort surgery for recurrent stress urinary incontinence: the views of surgeons and women
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5754391/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28577173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3376-6
work_keys_str_mv AT tincellodouglasg surgeryforrecurrentstressurinaryincontinencetheviewsofsurgeonsandwomen
AT armstrongnatalie surgeryforrecurrentstressurinaryincontinencetheviewsofsurgeonsandwomen
AT hiltonpaul surgeryforrecurrentstressurinaryincontinencetheviewsofsurgeonsandwomen
AT buckleybrian surgeryforrecurrentstressurinaryincontinencetheviewsofsurgeonsandwomen
AT maynechristopher surgeryforrecurrentstressurinaryincontinencetheviewsofsurgeonsandwomen