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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |