Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 10, pp 1489–1494 | Cite as

Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery practice patterns: IUGA member survey

  • Gamal GhoniemEmail author
  • Jessica Hammett
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The purpose of this study is to describe the current practice patterns of the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) members regarding the diagnosis, evaluation, and surgical management of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods

A 30-item internet-based survey was sent to IUGA members. Response to the survey was voluntary, and subjects answered questions regarding demographics, the evaluation of POP and SUI, including urodynamics (UDS) testing, preferred management of POP and SUI, and the application of mesh in reconstructive surgery.

Results

Three hundred and thirty-four IUGA members responded to the survey; most of the responses were from Europe (40 %) and North America (23 %). After the FDA safety communication regarding serious complications of using transvaginal mesh, 45 % of responders reported decreased use of mesh, while 31 % reported that it had no effect or that they did not use mesh for transvaginal prolapse (23.6 %). Regarding the evaluation and treatment of SUI, 51 % of responders would perform urodynamics (UDS) before surgical correction of uncomplicated SUI and 78.5 % of responders would perform UDS if no urine leakage was demonstrated on examination. The preferred method of treatment for SUI is midurethral sling (MUS), regardless of prior treatments (65.1 %), concomitant surgeries (74.5 %), or examination findings (50.8–92.6 %). Regarding POP repair, the preferred approach for apical (61 %) and posterior (99.4 %) prolapse repair is vaginal.

Conclusions

Most respondents use a vaginal approach for POP surgery. The FDA safety communication regarding serious complications related to the use of transvaginal mesh for prolapse surgery led to a global decrease in the employment of mesh for POP. Synthetic midurethral slings are predominant in the current treatment of SUI. Despite new recommendations, many responders still perform UDS for uncomplicated SUI.

Keywords

IUGA Practice patterns Survey Pelvic organ prolapse Stress urinary incontinence 

Abbreviations

FDA

US Food and Drug Administration

IUGA

International Urogynecological Association

POP

Pelvic organ prolapse

SUI

Stress urinary incontinence

UDS

Urodynamics

Notes

Acknowledgements

IUGA members of the Research and Development committee for their input into the questionnaire development; the IUGA office, Washington DC, for their help with emails, letters, blinding, and prize donation. The survey questionnaire can be accessed through the IUGA website: http://www.iuga.org/members/group_content_view.asp?group=142683&id=440098. The link to the PDF is: http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iuga.org/resource/collection/50CEC9BC-67F5-4620-8DFF-8117251AE88D/IUGA_Practice_Patterns_Survey_2014.pdf.

Financial disclaimers/conflict of interest statement

Gamal Ghoniem: uroplasty; research grant ROSE Registry (HS: 2011–8420); Jessica Hammett: none.

References

  1. 1.
    FDA Public Health Notification: Serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh in repair of pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/publichealthnotifications/ucm061976.htm
  2. 2.
    Davila GW, Ghoniem GM, Kapoor DS, Contreras-Ortiz O (2002) Pelvic floor dysfunction management practice patterns: a survey of members of the International Urogynecological Association. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 13(5):319–325. doi: 10.1007/s001920200069 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards PJ, Roberts I, Clarke MJ, Diguiseppi C, Wentz R, Kwan I, Cooper R, Felix LM, Pratap S (2009) Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (3):Mr000008. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000008.pub4
  4. 4.
    Khaja A, Freeman RM (2014) How often should shelf/Gellhorn pessaries be changed? a survey of IUGA urogynecologists. Int Urogynecol J 25:941–946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yune JJ, Siddighi S (2013) Perceptions and practice patterns of general gynecologists regarding urogynecology and pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelv Med Reconstruct Surg 19(4):225–229. doi: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3182995107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nager CW, Brubaker L, Litman HJ, Zyczynski HM, Varner RE, Amundsen C, Sirls LT, Norton PA, Arisco AM, Chai TC, Zimmern P, Barber MD, Dandreo KJ, Menefee SA, Kenton K, Lowder J, Richter HE, Khandwala S, Nygaard I, Kraus SR, Johnson HW, Lemack GE, Mihova M, Albo ME, Mueller E, Sutkin G, Wilson TS, Hsu Y, Rozanski TA, Rickey LM, Rahn D, Tennstedt S, Kusek JW, Gormley EA (2012) A randomized trial of urodynamic testing before stress-incontinence surgery. N Engl J Med 366(21):1987–1997. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1113595 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Winters JC, Dmochowski RR, Goldman HB, Herndon CD, Kobashi KC, Kraus SR, Lemack GE, Nitti VW, Rovner ES, Wein AJ (2012) Urodynamic studies in adults: AUA/SUFU guideline. J Urol 188(6 Suppl):2464–2472. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.09.081 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Richter HE, Albo ME, Zyczynski HM, Kenton K, Norton PA, Sirls LT, Kraus SR, Chai TC, Lemack GE, Dandreo KJ, Varner RE, Menefee S, Ghetti C, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Khandwala S, Rozanski TA, Johnson H, Schaffer J, Stoddard AM, Holley RL, Nager CW, Moalli P, Mueller E, Arisco AM, Corton M, Tennstedt S, Chang TD, Gormley EA, Litman HJ (2010) Retropubic versus transobturator midurethral slings for stress incontinence. N Engl J Med 362(22):2066–2076. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0912658 PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schierlitz L, Dwyer PL, Rosamilia A, Murray C, Thomas E, De Souza A, Hiscock R (2012) Three-year follow-up of tension-free vaginal tape compared with transobturator tape in women with stress urinary incontinence and intrinsic sphincter deficiency. Obstet Gynecol 119(2 Pt 1):321–327. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31823dfc73 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pott-Grinstein E, Newcomer JR (2001) Gynecologists’ patterns of prescribing pessaries. J Reproduct Med 46(3):205–208Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cundiff GW, Weidner AC, Visco AG, Bump RC, Addison WA (2000) A survey of pessary use by members of the American urogynecologic society. Obstet Gynecol 95(6 Pt 1):931–935CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urology, Division of Female Urology, Pelvic Reconstruction Surgery and Voiding DysfunctionUniversity of CaliforniaOrangeUSA

Personalised recommendations