Treatment of vaginal vault prolapse in The Netherlands: a clinical practice survey
- 115 Downloads
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsVaginal vault prolapse Treatment Sacrocolpopexy Trans vaginal mesh Sacrospinous fixation Pessary
International Urogynaecology Association
Dutch Trial Register
Pelvic organ prolapse
Practice pattern variation
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
Vaginal vault prolapse
We thank the Dutch Society for Urogynaecology for sending our survey to the gynecologists and to all who contributed to this paper by responding to our questionnaire.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 3.Central Bureau for Statistics. Hospital procedures in the Netherlands; hysterectomy 1995–2010. 2014, February 5. Retrieved from http://statline.cbs.nl.
- 5.Marchionni M, Bracco GL, Checcucci V, Carabaneanu A, Coccia EM, Mecacci F, et al. True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. Reprod Med. 1999;44(8):679–84.Google Scholar
- 8.Panman CM, Wiegersma M, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Lisman-van Leeuwen Y, Vermeulen KM, et al. 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):1307–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women (review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;4:1–161.Google Scholar
- 15.Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD012376.Google Scholar
- 18.Maher C, Baessler K, Glazener CM, Adams EJ, Hagen S. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;3:CD004014.Google Scholar
- 24.Svabik K, Martan A, Masata J, El-Haddad R, Hubka P. Comparison of vaginal mesh repair with sacrospinous vaginal colpopexy in the management of vaginal vault prolapse after hysterectomy in patients with levator ani avulsion: a randomized controlled trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014;43(4):365–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Nezhat CH, Nezhat F, Nezhat C. Laparoscopic sacral colpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1994;84(5):885–8.Google Scholar