Article Sidebar
Article Details
How to Cite
Adam, A., Jeffery, S., Adam, A., de Jong, P., & Arieff, Y. (2011). Do urologists and gynaecologists manage posterior compartment prolapse differently?. South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 17(1), 4–8. Retrieved from https://www.ajol.info/index.php/sajog/article/view/70526
Issue
Section
Articles
Material submitted for publication in the South African Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecologyl (SAJOG) is accepted provided it has not been published elsewhere. Copyright forms will be sent with acknowledgement of receipt and the SAJOG reserves copyright of the material published.
The SAJOG does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Main Article Content
Do urologists and gynaecologists manage posterior compartment prolapse differently?
Abstract
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.
