See the published version of this preprint at BMC Women's Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Peter Urdzík
Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika v Košiciach Lekárska fakulta
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9718-232X
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Backround: 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 gynaecologists in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia.
Results : A total of 140 female gynaecologists 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.
Keywords
Preference, survey, attitude, prolapse, hysterectomy, sparing surgery
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
The full text of this article is available to read as a PDF.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Women's Health.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 20 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 30 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 30 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 30 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Sep, 2020
Version (no preprint)
Posted 12 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 Oct, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Oct, 2020
This version was not preprinted
Version 1
Posted 17 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 14 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 14 Sep, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 22 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 31 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Women's Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Peter Urdzík
Univerzita Pavla Jozefa Šafárika v Košiciach Lekárska fakulta
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9718-232X
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Women's Health.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Accept
On 20 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editor assigned
On 30 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 30 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 30 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 30 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 30 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 30 Sep, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 29 Sep, 2020
Editor invited
On 29 Sep, 2020
Version (no preprint)
Posted 12 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 14 Oct, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Oct, 2020
This version was not preprinted
Version 1
Posted 17 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 14 Sep, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 14 Sep, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 14 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 10 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 09 Sep, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 26 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 22 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 15 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 15 Jun, 2020
First submitted
On 31 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Obstetrics & Gynecology
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Women's Health.
Backround: 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 gynaecologists in the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Slovakia.
Results : A total of 140 female gynaecologists 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.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
The full text of this article is available to read as a PDF.
Loading...