Treatment of Vaginal Vault Prolapse in The Netherlands: a Clinical Practice Survey

Overview

Journal Int Urogynecol J

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Urology

Date 2018 Dec 6

PMID 30515540

Citations 4

Authors

Carolien K M Vermeulen

Anne Lotte W M Coolen

Wilbert A Spaans

Jan Paul W R Roovers

Marlies Y Bongers

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction And Hypothesis: A great variety of conservative and surgical procedures to correct vaginal vault prolapse have been reported. The aim of this study was to describe practice pattern variation-the difference in care that cannot be explained by the underlying medical condition-among Dutch gynecologists regarding treatment of vaginal vault prolapse.

Methods: A clinical practice survey was conducted from March to April 2017. The questionnaire was developed to evaluate treatment of vaginal vault prolapse. All members of the Dutch Society for Urogynaecology were invited to participate in a web-based survey.

Results: One hundred four Dutch gynecologists with special interest in urogynecology responded to the survey (response rate, 44%). As first-choice therapy for vaginal vault prolapse, 78% of the respondents chose pessary treatment, whereas sacrospinous fixation was the second most common therapy choice according to 64% of the respondents. Preferences on how to approach vaginal vault prolapse surgically are conflicting. Overall, the most performed surgery for vaginal vault prolapse is sacrospinous fixation, followed by laparoscopic and robotic sacrocolpopexy.

Conclusions: Gynecologists in The Netherlands manage vaginal vault prolapse very differently. No standardized method could be determined for the treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands, and we observed practice pattern variations.

Citing Articles

Gynecologists' perspectives on surgical treatment for apical prolapse: a qualitative study.

van Oudheusden A, Weemhoff M, Menge L, Essers B Int Urogynecol J. 2023; 34(11):2705-2712.

PMID: 37392227 PMC: 10682281. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-023-05587-1.

Comparison of first versus second line sacrocolpopexies in terms of morbidity and mid-term efficacy.

Lallemant M, Grob A, Puyraveau M, Perik M, Alhafidh A, Cosson M Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):16283.

PMID: 36175515 PMC: 9522651. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20127-5.

Practice pattern variation: treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in The Netherlands.

Enklaar R, van IJsselmuiden M, IntHout J, Haan S, Rijssenbeek O, Bremmer R Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 33(7):1973-1980.

PMID: 34487194 PMC: 9270291. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04968-8.

Significant Improvement in Quality of Life, Positive Effect on Sexuality, Lasting Reconstructive Result and Low Rate of Complications Following Cystocele Correction Using a Lightweight, Large-Pore, Titanised Polypropylene Mesh: Final Results of a....

Cadenbach-Blome T, Grebe M, Mengel M, Pauli F, Greser A, Funfgeld C Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2019; 79(9):959-968.

PMID: 31523096 PMC: 6739206. DOI: 10.1055/a-0984-6614.

References

Fernando R, Thakar R, Sultan A, Shah S, Jones P . Effect of vaginal pessaries on symptoms associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 108(1):93-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000222903.38684.cc. View

Wu J, Hundley A, Fulton R, Myers E . Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. Women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(6):1278-1283. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c2ce96. View

Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, Jenkinson D, Fraser C, Bain C . Systematic review of the efficacy and safety of using mesh in surgery for uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010; 21(11):1413-31. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1156-7. View

Jia X, Glazener C, Mowatt G, MacLennan G, Bain C, Fraser C . Efficacy and safety of using mesh or grafts in surgery for anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall prolapse: systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG. 2008; 115(11):1350-61. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01845.x. View

Dietz V, de Jong J, Huisman M, Schraffordt Koops S, Heintz P, van der Vaart H . The effectiveness of the sacrospinous hysteropexy for the primary treatment of uterovaginal prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2007; 18(11):1271-6. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-007-0336-6. View

Cundiff G, Amundsen C, Bent A, Coates K, Schaffer J, Strohbehn K . The PESSRI study: symptom relief outcomes of a randomized crossover trial of the ring and Gellhorn pessaries. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 196(4):405.e1-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.02.018. View

Coolen A, van Oudheusden A, Mol B, van Eijndhoven H, Roovers J, Bongers M . Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy compared with open abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vault prolapse repair: a randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28(10):1469-1479. PMC: 5606943. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3296-5. View

Coolen A, van Oudheusden A, van Eijndhoven H, van der Heijden T, Stokmans R, Mol B . A Comparison of Complications between Open Abdominal Sacrocolpopexy and Laparoscopic Sacrocolpopexy for the Treatment of Vault Prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013; 2013:528636. PMC: 3804373. DOI: 10.1155/2013/528636. View

Lamers B, Broekman B, Milani A . Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and health-related quality of life: a review. Int Urogynecol J. 2011; 22(6):637-44. PMC: 3097351. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1390-7. View

10.

Klauschie J, Cornella J . Surgical treatment of vaginal vault prolapse: a historic summary and review of outcomes. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 18(1):10-7. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e3182404189. View

11.

Uzoma A, Farag K . Vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2009; 2009:275621. PMC: 2778877. DOI: 10.1155/2009/275621. View

12.

Maher C, Qatawneh A, Dwyer P, Carey M, Cornish A, Schluter P . Abdominal sacral colpopexy or vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: a prospective randomized study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 190(1):20-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.08.031. View

13.

Davila G, Ghoniem G, Kapoor D . Pelvic floor dysfunction management practice patterns: a survey of members of the International Urogynecological Association. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2002; 13(5):319-25. DOI: 10.1007/s001920200069. View

14.

Panman C, Wiegersma M, Kollen B, Berger M, Lisman-van Leeuwen Y, Vermeulen K . Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of pessary treatment compared with pelvic floor muscle training in older women with pelvic organ prolapse: 2-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial in primary care. Menopause. 2016; 23(12):1307-1318. DOI: 10.1097/GME.0000000000000706. View

15.

Coolen A, Bui B, Dietz V, Wang R, van Montfoort A, Mol B . The treatment of post-hysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2017; 28(12):1767-1783. PMC: 5705749. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3493-2. View

16.

Nezhat C, Nezhat F, Nezhat C . Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1994; 84(5):885-8. View

17.

Dallenbach P, Kaelin-Gambirasio I, Jacob S, Dubuisson J, Boulvain M . Incidence rate and risk factors for vaginal vault prolapse repair after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008; 19(12):1623-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-008-0718-4. View

18.

Aigmueller T, Dungl A, Hinterholzer S, Geiss I, Riss P . An estimation of the frequency of surgery for posthysterectomy vault prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2009; 21(3):299-302. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-009-1033-4. View

19.

Claerhout F, Verguts J, Werbrouck E, Veldman J, Lewi P, Deprest J . Analysis of the learning process for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy: identification of challenging steps. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 25(9):1185-91. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2412-z. View

20.

Lykke R, Blaakaer J, Ottesen B, Gimbel H . Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery among Danish women hysterectomized for benign conditions: age at hysterectomy, age at subsequent POP operation, and risk of POP after hysterectomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2014; 26(4):527-32. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-014-2490-y. View