Search

Introduction and hypothesis: The objective of this study was to compare the functional outcomes after pessary treatment and after prolapse surgery as primary treatments for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods: This was a prospective cohort study performed in a Dutch teaching hospital in women with symptomatic POP of stage II or higher requiring treatment. Patients were treated according to their preference with a pessary or prolapse surgery. The primary endpoint was disease-specific quality of life at 12 months follow-up according to the prolapse domain of the Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes included adverse events and additional interventions. To show a difference of ten points in the primary outcome, we needed to randomize 80 women (power 80%, α 0.05, taking 10% attrition into account). Results: We included 113 women (74 in the pessary group, 39 in the surgery group). After 12 months, the median prolapse domain score was 0 (10th to 90th percentile 0-33) in the pessary group and 0 (10th to 90th percentile 0-0) in the surgery group ( p < 0.01). Differences in other domain scores were not statistically significant. In the pessary group, 28% (21/74) of the women had a surgical intervention versus 3% (1/39) reoperations in the surgery group ( p = 0.01). Conclusions: In women with POP of stage II or higher undergoing surgery, prolapse symptoms were less severe than in those who were treated with a pessary, but 72% of women who were treated with a pessary did not opt for surgery. Trial registration number: Dutch trial register NTR2856. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.