-
Something wrong with this record ?
Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey)
P. Urdzík, V. Kalis, M. Blaganje, Z. Rusavy, M. Smazinka, M. Havir, R. Dudič, KM. Ismail
Language English Country Great Britain
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Grant support
1/0873/18
Vedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV
Nr. LO1503
Grantová Agentura, Univerzita Karlova
CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000787
Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
NLK
BioMedCentral
from 2001-12-01
BioMedCentral Open Access
from 2001
Directory of Open Access Journals
from 2001
Free Medical Journals
from 2001
PubMed Central
from 2001
Europe PubMed Central
from 2001
ProQuest Central
from 2009-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2001-06-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2001-01-01
Open Access Digital Library
from 2001-01-01
CINAHL Plus with Full Text (EBSCOhost)
from 2008-01-01
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest)
from 2009-01-01
Health & Medicine (ProQuest)
from 2009-01-01
ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources
from 2001
Springer Nature OA/Free Journals
from 2001-12-01
- MeSH
- Surgical Mesh MeSH
- Hysterectomy methods statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Organ Sparing Treatments methods statistics & numerical data MeSH
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Obstetric Surgical Procedures adverse effects methods MeSH
- Pelvic Organ Prolapse surgery MeSH
- Surveys and Questionnaires MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Middle Aged MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Geographicals
- Slovenia MeSH
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the personal views of female gynecologists regarding the management of POP with a particular focus on the issue of uterine sparing surgery. METHODS: A questionnaire based survey of practicing female gynecologists in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia. RESULTS: A total of 140 female gynecologists from 81 units responded to our questionnaire. The majority of respondents stated they would rely on a urogynecologist to aid them with their choice of POP management options. The most preferred options for POP management were sacrocolpopexy and physiotherapy. Almost 2/3 of respondents opted for a hysterectomy together with POP surgery, if they were menopausal, even if the anatomical outcome was similar to uterine sparing POP surgery. Moreover, 81.4% of respondents, who initially opted for a uterine sparing procedure, changed their mind if the anatomical success of POP surgery with concomitant hysterectomy was superior. Discussing uterine cancer risk in relation to other organs had a less significant impact on their choices. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of female gynecologists in our study opted for hysterectomy if they were postmenopausal at the time of POP surgery. However, variation in information provision had an impact on their choice.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21011981
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210714131252.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210420s2020 xxk f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1186/s12905-020-01105-3 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)33109157
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xxk
- 100 1_
- $a Urdzík, Peter $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine, Safarik's University and L. Pasteur Teaching Hospital in Kosice, SNP Street No. 1, 04001, Košice, Slovak Republic. peter.urdzik@upjs.sk
- 245 10
- $a Pelvic organ prolapse and uterine preservation: a survey of female gynecologists (POP-UP survey) / $c P. Urdzík, V. Kalis, M. Blaganje, Z. Rusavy, M. Smazinka, M. Havir, R. Dudič, KM. Ismail
- 520 9_
- $a BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the personal views of female gynecologists regarding the management of POP with a particular focus on the issue of uterine sparing surgery. METHODS: A questionnaire based survey of practicing female gynecologists in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia. RESULTS: A total of 140 female gynecologists from 81 units responded to our questionnaire. The majority of respondents stated they would rely on a urogynecologist to aid them with their choice of POP management options. The most preferred options for POP management were sacrocolpopexy and physiotherapy. Almost 2/3 of respondents opted for a hysterectomy together with POP surgery, if they were menopausal, even if the anatomical outcome was similar to uterine sparing POP surgery. Moreover, 81.4% of respondents, who initially opted for a uterine sparing procedure, changed their mind if the anatomical success of POP surgery with concomitant hysterectomy was superior. Discussing uterine cancer risk in relation to other organs had a less significant impact on their choices. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of female gynecologists in our study opted for hysterectomy if they were postmenopausal at the time of POP surgery. However, variation in information provision had an impact on their choice.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a hysterektomie $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D007044
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a porodnické chirurgické výkony $x škodlivé účinky $x metody $7 D013513
- 650 _2
- $a léčba šetřící orgány $x metody $x statistika a číselné údaje $7 D059351
- 650 _2
- $a prolaps pánevních orgánů $x chirurgie $7 D056887
- 650 _2
- $a chirurgické síťky $7 D013526
- 650 _2
- $a průzkumy a dotazníky $7 D011795
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 651 _2
- $a Slovinsko $7 D017524
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 655 _2
- $a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
- 700 1_
- $a Kalis, Vladimir $u Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, alej Svobody 80, 304 60, Plzeň, Czech Republic ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Charles University, alej Svobody 80, 304 60, Plzeň, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Blaganje, Mija $u Division of Gynecology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, Šlajmerjeva 3, 1525, Ljubljana, Slovenia
- 700 1_
- $a Rusavy, Zdenek $u Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, alej Svobody 80, 304 60, Plzeň, Czech Republic ; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Charles University, alej Svobody 80, 304 60, Plzeň, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Smazinka, Martin $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Charles University, alej Svobody 80, 304 60, Plzeň, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Havir, Martin $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Charles University, alej Svobody 80, 304 60, Plzeň, Czech Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Dudič, Rastislav $u Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine, Safarik's University and L. Pasteur Teaching Hospital in Kosice, SNP Street No. 1, 04001, Košice, Slovak Republic
- 700 1_
- $a Ismail, Khaled M $u Biomedical Center, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, alej Svobody 80, 304 60, Plzeň, Czech Republic ; Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Faculty of Medicine in Pilsen, Charles University, alej Svobody 80, 304 60, Plzeň, Czech Republic
- 773 0_
- $w MED00008209 $t BMC women's health $x 1472-6874 $g Roč. 20, č. 1 (2020), s. 241
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33109157 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210420 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210714131250 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1650373 $s 1132360
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2020 $b 20 $c 1 $d 241 $e 20201027 $i 1472-6874 $m BMC women's health $n BMC Womens Health $x MED00008209
- GRA __
- $a 1/0873/18 $p Vedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAV
- GRA __
- $a Nr. LO1503 $p Grantová Agentura, Univerzita Karlova
- GRA __
- $a CZ.02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000787 $p Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20210420
