Search

Abstract: This clinical consensus statement on vaginal energy-based devices (EBDs) reflects an update by content experts from the American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group. In 2019, the American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group used a modified Delphi process to assess statements that were evaluated for consensus after a structured literature search. A total of 40 statements were assessed and divided into 5 categories: (1) patient criteria, (2) health care provider criteria, (3) efficacy, (4) safety, and (5) treatment considerations. Of the 40 statements that were assessed, 28 reached consensus and the remaining 12 did not. Lack of evidence was among the main reasons that vulvovaginal EBD treatment statements did not reach consensus. In March 2022, these statements were reassessed using the interim literature., Competing Interests: The other authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.)

This clinical consensus statement on vaginal energy-based devices (EBDs) reflects statements drafted by content experts from the American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group. The American Urogynecologic Society's EBD writing group used a modified Delphi process to assess statements that were evaluated for consensus after a structured literature search. A total of 40 statements were assessed and divided into 5 categories: (1) patient criteria, (2) health care provider criteria, (3) efficacy, (4) safety, and (5) treatment considerations. Of the 40 statements that were assessed, 28 reached consensus and the remaining 12 did not. Lack of evidence was among the main reasons that vulvovaginal EBD treatment statements did not reach consensus.

Objective: The aims of this study are to identify screening, treatment, and referral practices of primary care physicians (PCPs) for patients with pelvic floor disorders (PFDs) and evaluate awareness of the Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery (FPMRS) subspecialty., Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of PCPs using a random sample of 1005 American College of Physicians members, stratified by demographic region. Electronic survey content included awareness of FPMRS certification, comfort diagnosing and treating PFDs, and PFD referral patterns for PCPs., Results: The 399 survey respondents were predominately male and of diverse ages, geographic distribution, and experience level.Forty-eight percent were aware of the FPMRS subspecialty, 31% of FPMRS board certification, and 25% of American Urogynecologic Society. Less than one third screened for PFDs, only two thirds were comfortable diagnosing urinary complaints, and even fewer felt comfortable diagnosing pelvic organ prolapse and fecal incontinence (FI).Eighty-five percent recommended pelvic floor exercises for stress urinary incontinence and referred to urology (29%) or FPMRS (25%) as second-line therapy, whereas 55% recommended medication/fiber for FI and referred to gastroenterology/colorectal surgery (31%) and FPMRS (2%) as second-line therapy.Primary care physicians referred to colorectal surgery for FI (60%), to Ob/Gyn for obstetric anal sphincter injury (38%) and pelvic organ prolapse (57%), and to urology for microscopic hematuria (80%), overactive bladder (60%), recurrent urinary tract infection (75%), stress urinary incontinence (48%), and voiding dysfunction (84%)., Conclusions: Most PCPs do not routinely screen for PFDs, and fewer feel comfortable treating. The majority is unaware of FPMRS and American Urogynecologic Society and more commonly refers PFD patients to other specialists.