INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic techniques for pelvic organ prolapse surgery using mesh are gaining interest. A standard approach or published guideline for the laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is lacking. The purpose of this study is to assess the variation between Dutch gynecologists in executing LSH and LSC. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the technique of LSH and LSC. All members of the Dutch Society for Gynecological Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery and the Dutch Society for Urogynecology were invited by email to participate in a web-based survey. RESULTS: With 357 respondents, the response rate was 71%. Of the respondents, a total of 49 gynecologists (13.7%) perform LSH and/or LSC. Gynecologists who perform both procedures use the same surgical technique for LSH and LSC. There are variations among gynecologists on several key points such as the level of dissection along the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina, the type of mesh used, the type of sutures used, the tension of the implanted mesh and reperitonealization of the mesh. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high practice variation in LSH and LSC performed by a selected group of Dutch gynecologists. Different methods have been described in the literature and there is no consensus on how to perform these procedures. A well-designed prospective study or randomized controlled trial with regard to the specific parts of these procedures is needed to provide evidence for the best surgical technique. The outcomes of these studies will help to establish evidence-based guidelines.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Laparoscopic techniques for pelvic organ prolapse surgery using mesh are gaining interest. A standard approach or published guideline for the laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy (LSH) or laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) is lacking. The purpose of this study is to assess the variation between Dutch gynecologists in executing LSH and LSC. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the technique of LSH and LSC. All members of the Dutch Society for Gynecological Endoscopy and Minimally Invasive Surgery and the Dutch Society for Urogynecology were invited by email to participate in a web-based survey. RESULTS: With 357 respondents, the response rate was 71%. Of the respondents, a total of 49 gynecologists (13.7%) perform LSH and/or LSC. Gynecologists who perform both procedures use the same surgical technique for LSH and LSC. There are variations among gynecologists on several key points such as the level of dissection along the anterior and posterior walls of the vagina, the type of mesh used, the type of sutures used, the tension of the implanted mesh and reperitonealization of the mesh. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high practice variation in LSH and LSC performed by a selected group of Dutch gynecologists. Different methods have been described in the literature and there is no consensus on how to perform these procedures. A well-designed prospective study or randomized controlled trial with regard to the specific parts of these procedures is needed to provide evidence for the best surgical technique. The outcomes of these studies will help to establish evidence-based guidelines.
Authors: P Antiphon; S Elard; A Benyoussef; M Fofana; R Yiou; M Gettman; A Hoznek; D Vordos; D K Chopin; C C Abbou Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Matthew T Siedhoff; Leslie H Clark; Kumari A Hobbs; Austin D Findley; Janelle K Moulder; Joanne M Garrett Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Anique M J van Oudheusden; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven; Tim P F M van der Heijden; Rutger A Stokmans; Ben Willem J Mol; Marlies Y Bongers Journal: Obstet Gynecol Int Date: 2013-09-26