Neha T Sudol1, Sonia Dutta2, Felicia Lane2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, 333 City Blvd. West, Suite 1400, Orange, CA, 92868, USA. nehat@uci.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, 333 City Blvd. West, Suite 1400, Orange, CA, 92868, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The pubovaginal sling (PVS) dates to the 1940s as an efficacious surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Recently, it has been replaced by the midurethral sling (MUS). Since 2008, international regulatory agencies increased regulation and issued warnings on vaginal mesh for repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), which has led to increased scrutiny of the MUS. Thus, the need for surgical comfort with PVS is resurfacing. We sought to evaluate the surgical practice patterns among international urogynecologists for the treatment of SUI and identify whether a need and interest for more training exists. METHODS: We developed a short, Internet-based survey for members of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). Descriptive analyses, binomial and multivariate logistic regressions were calculated to determine significant associations. RESULTS: Among 556 members who responded to the survey, 72% did not offer PVS in practice. Among those who did, there was as significant relationship between offering PVS and practicing in the United States, board-certification in urogynecology, PVS exposure in training, increasing number of PVS performed during training, and comfort with PVS. Members interested in further PVS training were younger, less comfortable with PVS, performed fewer PVS, or had no exposure in training. CONCLUSION: Most IUGA members do not offer PVS in clinical practice. As would be expected, members who performed more PVS in training and were more comfortable with PVS were likely to offer it to patients. Our results highlight a learning gap, especially among younger providers who are not comfortable with PVS and desire further training in this procedure.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The pubovaginal sling (PVS) dates to the 1940s as an efficacious surgical treatment for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Recently, it has been replaced by the midurethral sling (MUS). Since 2008, international regulatory agencies increased regulation and issued warnings on vaginal mesh for repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP), which has led to increased scrutiny of the MUS. Thus, the need for surgical comfort with PVS is resurfacing. We sought to evaluate the surgical practice patterns among international urogynecologists for the treatment of SUI and identify whether a need and interest for more training exists. METHODS: We developed a short, Internet-based survey for members of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). Descriptive analyses, binomial and multivariate logistic regressions were calculated to determine significant associations. RESULTS: Among 556 members who responded to the survey, 72% did not offer PVS in practice. Among those who did, there was as significant relationship between offering PVS and practicing in the United States, board-certification in urogynecology, PVS exposure in training, increasing number of PVS performed during training, and comfort with PVS. Members interested in further PVS training were younger, less comfortable with PVS, performed fewer PVS, or had no exposure in training. CONCLUSION: Most IUGA members do not offer PVS in clinical practice. As would be expected, members who performed more PVS in training and were more comfortable with PVS were likely to offer it to patients. Our results highlight a learning gap, especially among younger providers who are not comfortable with PVS and desire further training in this procedure.
Entities:
Keywords:
Autologous fascia sling; FDA warning; Midurethral sling; Pubovaginal sling; Stress urinary incontinence
Authors: Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Matthew D Barber; Christopher R Chapple; Elisabetta Costantini; Vincenzo Ficarra; Paul Hilton; Carl G Nilsson; David Waltregny Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-04-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kathleen C Kobashi; Michael E Albo; Roger R Dmochowski; David A Ginsberg; Howard B Goldman; Alexander Gomelsky; Stephen R Kraus; Jaspreet S Sandhu; Tracy Shepler; Jonathan R Treadwell; Sandip Vasavada; Gary E Lemack Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Goran Rac; Austin Younger; James Q Clemens; Kathleen Kobashi; Aqsa Khan; Victor Nitti; Ilana Jacobs; Gary E Lemack; Elizabeth T Brown; Roger Dmochowski; Lara MacLachlan; Arthur Mourtzinos; David Ginsberg; Michelle Koski; Ross Rames; Eric S Rovner Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Michelle Elaine Koski; Jennifer Chamberlain; James Rosoff; Taylor Vaughan; Melissa R Kaufman; Jack C Winters; Eric S Rovner Journal: Urology Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 2.649