International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 13, Issue 5, pp 319–325

Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Management Practice Patterns: A Survey of Members of the International Urogynecological Association


  • G. W. Davila
    • Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA
  • G. M. Ghoniem
    • Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA
  • D. S. Kapoor
    • Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida, USA
  • O. Contreras-Ortiz
    • University of Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Original Article

DOI: 10.1007/s001920200069

Cite this article as:
Davila, G., Ghoniem, G., Kapoor, D. et al. Int Urogynecol J (2002) 13: 319. doi:10.1007/s001920200069


The authors report results of a survey of the practice patterns of International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) members in the management of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. A questionnaire regarding current urogynecological clinical practice was developed by the Research and Development Committee of IUGA and mailed to all members of IUGA. Age, specialty, and geographic location factors were used for response comparisons. One hundred and fifty-two surveys (30%) were returned, 35% from North America, 51% from Europe/Australia/New Zealand, and 14% from elsewhere. The average age of respondents was 47.2 years (SD = 9.5), 89% were gynecologists and 11% were urologists. Overall, the procedures of choice for stress incontinence (SUI) were tension-free vaginal tape (TVT; 48.8%) and Burch colposuspension (44%). There were significant geographic variations noted. For SUI with low-pressure urethra/intrinsic sphincteric deficiency, TVT was used by 44.6% and suburethral sling by 32.3%. Various materials are used for suburethral slings, including autologous fascia (46.5%), Marlex mesh (27.8%) and cadaveric fascia lata (11.6%). Bulking agent injection therapy is used for ISD by 75% of respondents. Traditional reconstructive procedures are performed by the majority of respondents, including sacrospinous fixation (78%), abdominal sacrocolpopexy (77%), paravaginal repair (65%) and vaginal enterocele repair (93%); 6.5% use defecography in evaluating rectoceles and 44% use the POP-Q. Seventy-two per cent use urodynamic evaluation routinely in prolapse cases with no manifest SUI. Most IUGA members perform commonly accepted procedures for surgical therapy of urinary incontinence and genital prolapse. IUGA members do not frequently use anorectal physiology and fluoroscopic investigations to evaluate rectoceles prior to repair.

Key words:Genital prolapse – Slings – Urinary incontinence – Urogynecology

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Limited 2002