n South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology - Do urologists and gynaecologists manage posterior compartment prolapse differently? : original article
|Article Title||Do urologists and gynaecologists manage posterior compartment prolapse differently? : original article|
|© Publisher:||Health and Medical Publishing Group (HMPG)|
|Journal||South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology|
|Author||Ameera Adam, Stephen Jeffery, Ahmed Adam, Peter De Jong and Yusuf Arieff|
|Publication Date||Mar 2011|
|Pages||4 - 8|
|Keyword(s)||University of Cape Town, University of Pretoria and University of Stellenbosch|
Introduction and hypothesis. A comparative study assessing the management of posterior compartment prolapse (PCP) by gynaecologists and urologists in South Africa.
Methods. Questionnaires relating to the above procedures were posted to a nationwide random selection of urologists and gynaecologists.
Results. Of 500 questionnaires 106 (21%) were returned, 26 from urologists and 80 from gynaecologists. Urologists performed fewer PCP procedures, with 73% (N=19) doing less than one case per month; 58% of the urologists who indicated their procedure of choice would use a mesh kit. Of the gynaecologists, 60% (N=48) performed at least 5 procedures per month. Vaginal hysterectomy was not used in the management of prolapse by any of the responding urologists, compared with 82% (N=66) of the gynaecologists. In defining a successful outcome, only 12% (N=3) of the urologists and 14 % (N=11) of the gynaecologists mentioned sexual function, while 46% (N=12) of the urologists and 37% (N=30) of the gynaecologists mentioned bowel function.
Conclusion. Urologists use significantly more mesh kits and gynaecologists perform more traditional repairs.
Article metrics loading...