Carolien K M Vermeulen1, Anne Lotte W M Coolen2,3, Wilbert A Spaans4, Jan Paul W R Roovers5, Marlies Y Bongers2,3. 1. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Máxima Medical Centre, De Run 4600, 5500 MB, Veldhoven, The Netherlands. carolienvermeulen@outlook.com. 2. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Máxima Medical Centre, De Run 4600, 5500 MB, Veldhoven, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Grow, Research School of Oncology and Developmental Biology, University of Maastricht, Minderbroedersberg 4-6, 6211 LK, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Maastricht Academic Hospital, P. Debyelaan 25, 6229 HX, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Academic Medical Centre Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: A great variety of conservative and surgical procedures to correct vaginal vault prolapse have been reported. The aim of this study was to describe practice pattern variation-the difference in care that cannot be explained by the underlying medical condition-among Dutch gynecologists regarding treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. METHODS: A clinical practice survey was conducted from March to April 2017. The questionnaire was developed to evaluate treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. All members of the Dutch Society for Urogynaecology were invited to participate in a web-based survey. RESULTS: One hundred four Dutch gynecologists with special interest in urogynecology responded to the survey (response rate, 44%). As first-choice therapy for vaginal vault prolapse, 78% of the respondents chose pessary treatment, whereas sacrospinous fixation was the second most common therapy choice according to 64% of the respondents. Preferences on how to approach vaginal vault prolapse surgically are conflicting. Overall, the most performed surgery for vaginal vault prolapse is sacrospinous fixation, followed by laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologists in The Netherlands manage vaginal vault prolapse very differently. No standardized method could be determined for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands, and we observed practice pattern variations.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: A great variety of conservative and surgical procedures to correct vaginal vault prolapse have been reported. The aim of this study was to describe practice pattern variation-the difference in care that cannot be explained by the underlying medical condition-among Dutch gynecologists regarding treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. METHODS: A clinical practice survey was conducted from March to April 2017. The questionnaire was developed to evaluate treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. All members of the Dutch Society for Urogynaecology were invited to participate in a web-based survey. RESULTS: One hundred four Dutch gynecologists with special interest in urogynecology responded to the survey (response rate, 44%). As first-choice therapy for vaginal vault prolapse, 78% of the respondents chose pessary treatment, whereas sacrospinous fixation was the second most common therapy choice according to 64% of the respondents. Preferences on how to approach vaginal vault prolapse surgically are conflicting. Overall, the most performed surgery for vaginal vault prolapse is sacrospinous fixation, followed by laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy. CONCLUSIONS: Gynecologists in The Netherlands manage vaginal vault prolapse very differently. No standardized method could be determined for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands, and we observed practice pattern variations.
Authors: Geoffrey W Cundiff; Cindy L Amundsen; Alfred E Bent; Kimberly W Coates; Joseph I Schaffer; Kris Strohbehn; Victoria L Handa Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Viviane Dietz; Joyce de Jong; Marieke Huisman; Steven Schraffordt Koops; Peter Heintz; Huub van der Vaart Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2007-03-24
Authors: Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Anique M J van Oudheusden; Ben Willem J Mol; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven; Jan-Paul W R Roovers; Marlies Y Bongers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 2.894
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
Authors: Rosa A Enklaar; Mèlanie N van IJsselmuiden; Joanna IntHout; Stefan J H Haan; Olivier G A M Rijssenbeek; Rolf H Bremmer; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-09-06 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Marine Lallemant; A T M Grob; M Puyraveau; M A G Perik; A H H Alhafidh; M Cosson; R Ramanah Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 4.996