BACKGROUND: Prior surveys evaluating women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery both support and refute the acceptability of transvaginal access. Most surveys employed mainly quantitative analysis, limiting the insight into the women's perspective. In this mixed-methods study, we include qualitative and quantitative methodology to assess women's perceptions of transvaginal procedures. METHODS: Women seen at the outpatient clinics of a tertiary-care center were asked to complete a survey. Demographics and preferences for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and tubal ligation were elicited, along with open-ended questions about concerns or benefits of transvaginal access. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of age, education, parity, and prior transvaginal procedures on preferences. For the qualitative evaluation, content analysis by independent investigators identified themes, issues, and concerns raised in the comments. RESULTS: The completed survey tool was returned by 409 women (grouped mean age 53 years, mean number of 2 children, 82% ≥ some college education, and 56% with previous transvaginal procedure). The transvaginal approach was acceptable for tubal ligation to 59%, for appendectomy to 43%, and for cholecystectomy to 41% of the women. The most frequently mentioned factors that would make women prefer a vaginal approach were decreased invasiveness (14.4%), recovery time (13.9%), scarring (13.7%), pain (6%), and surgical entry location relative to organ removed (4.4%). The most frequently mentioned concerns about the vaginal approach were the possibility of complications/safety (14.7%), pain (9%), infection (5.6%), and recovery time (4.9%). A number of women voiced technical concerns about the vaginal approach. CONCLUSIONS: As in prior studies, scarring and pain were important issues to be considered, but recovery time and increased invasiveness were also in the "top five" list. The surveyed women appeared to actively participate in evaluating the technical components of the procedures.
BACKGROUND: Prior surveys evaluating women's perceptions of transvaginal surgery both support and refute the acceptability of transvaginal access. Most surveys employed mainly quantitative analysis, limiting the insight into the women's perspective. In this mixed-methods study, we include qualitative and quantitative methodology to assess women's perceptions of transvaginal procedures. METHODS:Women seen at the outpatient clinics of a tertiary-care center were asked to complete a survey. Demographics and preferences for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and tubal ligation were elicited, along with open-ended questions about concerns or benefits of transvaginal access. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of age, education, parity, and prior transvaginal procedures on preferences. For the qualitative evaluation, content analysis by independent investigators identified themes, issues, and concerns raised in the comments. RESULTS: The completed survey tool was returned by 409 women (grouped mean age 53 years, mean number of 2 children, 82% ≥ some college education, and 56% with previous transvaginal procedure). The transvaginal approach was acceptable for tubal ligation to 59%, for appendectomy to 43%, and for cholecystectomy to 41% of the women. The most frequently mentioned factors that would make women prefer a vaginal approach were decreased invasiveness (14.4%), recovery time (13.9%), scarring (13.7%), pain (6%), and surgical entry location relative to organ removed (4.4%). The most frequently mentioned concerns about the vaginal approach were the possibility of complications/safety (14.7%), pain (9%), infection (5.6%), and recovery time (4.9%). A number of women voiced technical concerns about the vaginal approach. CONCLUSIONS: As in prior studies, scarring and pain were important issues to be considered, but recovery time and increased invasiveness were also in the "top five" list. The surveyed women appeared to actively participate in evaluating the technical components of the procedures.
Authors: Andrew D Strickland; Michael G A Norwood; Fariba Behnia-Willison; Santosh A Olakkengil; Peter J Hewett Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Daniel Solomon; Rachel Lentz; Andrew J Duffy; Robert L Bell; Kurt E Roberts Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Carrie Y Peterson; Sonia Ramamoorthy; Barbara Andrews; Santiago Horgan; Mark Talamini; Alana Chock Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2008-12-05 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Philip H Pucher; Mikael H Sodergren; Amy C Lord; Julian Teare; Guang-Zhong Yang; Ara Darzi Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Bin Xu; Bo Xu; Wen-Yan Zheng; Hai-Yan Ge; Li-Wei Wang; Zhen-Sun Song; Bin He Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 5.742