Cargando…

Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The modified Manchester (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) are the most common uterus-preserving surgical procedures for uterine descent. Little is known about gynecologists’ preferences regarding the two interventions. The study’s aim was to identify which factors...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Enklaar, Rosa A., Essers, Brigitte A. B., ter Horst, Leanne, Kluivers, Kirsten B., Weemhoff, Mirjam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8009770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33106961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04568-y
_version_ 1783672939727552512
author Enklaar, Rosa A.
Essers, Brigitte A. B.
ter Horst, Leanne
Kluivers, Kirsten B.
Weemhoff, Mirjam
author_facet Enklaar, Rosa A.
Essers, Brigitte A. B.
ter Horst, Leanne
Kluivers, Kirsten B.
Weemhoff, Mirjam
author_sort Enklaar, Rosa A.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The modified Manchester (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) are the most common uterus-preserving surgical procedures for uterine descent. Little is known about gynecologists’ preferences regarding the two interventions. The study’s aim was to identify which factors influence Dutch (uro)gynecologists when choosing one of these techniques. METHODS: This qualitative study consists of ten semi-structured interviews with Dutch (uro)gynecologists using predetermined, open explorative questions, based on a structured topic list. An inductive content analysis was performed using Atlas.ti. RESULTS: For SSH, the majority (6/10 gynecologists) reported the more dorsal change of direction of the vaginal axis as a disadvantage and expected more cystocele recurrences (7/10). The most reported disadvantage of MM was the risk of cervical stenosis (7/10). Four gynecologists found MM not to be appropriate for patients with higher stage uterine prolapse. The quality of the uterosacral ligaments was related to the chance of recurrence according to five gynecologists. Patient counseling was biased toward one of the uterus-preserving operations (7/10). Four gynecologists stated they make the final decision while two let patient-preference lead the final decision. CONCLUSIONS: Preference for one of the uterus-preserving interventions is mainly based on the gynecologist’s own experience and background. The lack of information regarding these two uterus-preserving procedures hampers evidence-based decision making, which explains the practice pattern variation. In conclusion, further research is needed to improve evidence-based counseling and shared decision making regarding the choice of procedure. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00192-020-04568-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8009770
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80097702021-04-16 Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester Enklaar, Rosa A. Essers, Brigitte A. B. ter Horst, Leanne Kluivers, Kirsten B. Weemhoff, Mirjam Int Urogynecol J Original Article INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The modified Manchester (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) are the most common uterus-preserving surgical procedures for uterine descent. Little is known about gynecologists’ preferences regarding the two interventions. The study’s aim was to identify which factors influence Dutch (uro)gynecologists when choosing one of these techniques. METHODS: This qualitative study consists of ten semi-structured interviews with Dutch (uro)gynecologists using predetermined, open explorative questions, based on a structured topic list. An inductive content analysis was performed using Atlas.ti. RESULTS: For SSH, the majority (6/10 gynecologists) reported the more dorsal change of direction of the vaginal axis as a disadvantage and expected more cystocele recurrences (7/10). The most reported disadvantage of MM was the risk of cervical stenosis (7/10). Four gynecologists found MM not to be appropriate for patients with higher stage uterine prolapse. The quality of the uterosacral ligaments was related to the chance of recurrence according to five gynecologists. Patient counseling was biased toward one of the uterus-preserving operations (7/10). Four gynecologists stated they make the final decision while two let patient-preference lead the final decision. CONCLUSIONS: Preference for one of the uterus-preserving interventions is mainly based on the gynecologist’s own experience and background. The lack of information regarding these two uterus-preserving procedures hampers evidence-based decision making, which explains the practice pattern variation. In conclusion, further research is needed to improve evidence-based counseling and shared decision making regarding the choice of procedure. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00192-020-04568-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2020-10-26 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8009770/ /pubmed/33106961 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04568-y Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Article
Enklaar, Rosa A.
Essers, Brigitte A. B.
ter Horst, Leanne
Kluivers, Kirsten B.
Weemhoff, Mirjam
Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester
title Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester
title_full Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester
title_fullStr Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester
title_full_unstemmed Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester
title_short Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester
title_sort gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified manchester
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8009770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33106961
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04568-y
work_keys_str_mv AT enklaarrosaa gynecologistsperspectivesontwotypesofuteruspreservingsurgicalrepairofuterinedescentsacrospinoushysteropexyversusmodifiedmanchester
AT essersbrigitteab gynecologistsperspectivesontwotypesofuteruspreservingsurgicalrepairofuterinedescentsacrospinoushysteropexyversusmodifiedmanchester
AT terhorstleanne gynecologistsperspectivesontwotypesofuteruspreservingsurgicalrepairofuterinedescentsacrospinoushysteropexyversusmodifiedmanchester
AT kluiverskirstenb gynecologistsperspectivesontwotypesofuteruspreservingsurgicalrepairofuterinedescentsacrospinoushysteropexyversusmodifiedmanchester
AT weemhoffmirjam gynecologistsperspectivesontwotypesofuteruspreservingsurgicalrepairofuterinedescentsacrospinoushysteropexyversusmodifiedmanchester