Andrey Petrikovets1,2, Abigail Davenport3, Sherif A El-Nashar4, David Sheyn4,3, Jeffrey Mangel3, Sangeeta T Mahajan4. 1. Department of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Urology Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA. andrepetrikovets@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, MetroHealth Medical Center, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA. andrepetrikovets@yahoo.com. 3. Department of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, MetroHealth Medical Center, 2500 MetroHealth Drive, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA. 4. Department of Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery, Urology Institute, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The current urogynecological surgical experience of recent OB/GYN graduates in different practice settings is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in urogynecological surgical care between private practitioners (PPs) and other generalist OB/GYN oral board examinees. METHODS: A total of 699 OB/GYN oral board examination examinees were administered a survey during board preparatory courses with a 70.7% response rate. The primary outcome was to determine differences in subjective reported performance of urogynecological surgery with and without apical support procedures (female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, FPMRS, ± apical) between PP and generalists in other practice models (academic, managed care, other). Secondary outcomes included urogynecological case list reporting, referral patterns, and residency training. RESULTS: A total of 473 surveys were completed; after excluding subspecialists, 210 surveys were completed by PP and 162 by individuals in other settings. 6.7% of PPs subjectively reported that they perform FPMRS + apical surgery compared with 4.3% of those in other practice settings (p = 0.33). Although 29.2% of PPs reported adequate FPMRS training in residency compared with 39.7% of those in other practice settings (p = 0.04), 53.6% of PPs reported that they refer patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), compared with 66.5% of those in other practice settings (p = 0.013). 38.9% of PPs report that they performed POP surgery compared with 27.8% of non-PPs (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of practice setting, surgical volumes are low and few general OB/GYN board examinees report that they perform comprehensive FPMRS ± apical support surgery. The practice environment may affect providers' management of patients with pelvic floor disorders.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The current urogynecological surgical experience of recent OB/GYN graduates in different practice settings is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in urogynecological surgical care between private practitioners (PPs) and other generalist OB/GYN oral board examinees. METHODS: A total of 699 OB/GYN oral board examination examinees were administered a survey during board preparatory courses with a 70.7% response rate. The primary outcome was to determine differences in subjective reported performance of urogynecological surgery with and without apical support procedures (female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery, FPMRS, ± apical) between PP and generalists in other practice models (academic, managed care, other). Secondary outcomes included urogynecological case list reporting, referral patterns, and residency training. RESULTS: A total of 473 surveys were completed; after excluding subspecialists, 210 surveys were completed by PP and 162 by individuals in other settings. 6.7% of PPs subjectively reported that they perform FPMRS + apical surgery compared with 4.3% of those in other practice settings (p = 0.33). Although 29.2% of PPs reported adequate FPMRS training in residency compared with 39.7% of those in other practice settings (p = 0.04), 53.6% of PPs reported that they refer patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP), compared with 66.5% of those in other practice settings (p = 0.013). 38.9% of PPs report that they performed POP surgery compared with 27.8% of non-PPs (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of practice setting, surgical volumes are low and few general OB/GYN board examinees report that they perform comprehensive FPMRS ± apical support surgery. The practice environment may affect providers' management of patients with pelvic floor disorders.
Authors: J Eric Jelovsek; Mark D Walters; Abner Korn; Christopher Klingele; Nikki Zite; Beri Ridgeway; Matthew D Barber Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Lisa J Rogo-Gupta; Sharyn N Lewin; Jin Hee Kim; William M Burke; Xuming Sun; Thomas J Herzog; Jason D Wright Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Taylor Brueseke; Tyler Muffly; William Rayburn; AnnaMarie Connolly; Maria Nieto; Jacquia De La Cruz; Jennifer Wu Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Amie Kawasaki; Andrew F Hundley; Alexis A Dieter; Evan R Myers; Vivian W Sung Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-04-02 Impact factor: 8.661