Objective: To compare current practice in the management of female pelvic organ prolapse in Australia and New Zealand with that in 2007, and assess the impact on practice of the withdrawal of Prolift® and Prosima® mesh kits in 2015. Materials and Methods: In early 2015, two invitations to participate in a survey, including a link to Surveymonkey, were emailed to 2506 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG) trainees and fellows. The online survey closely resembled a printed survey that was posted to RANZCOG trainees and fellows in 2007 and had additional questions relating to the impact of withdrawal of Prolift® and Prosima® products. Results: Four-hundred-and-three doctors participated, giving a response rate of 16%. Native tissue repair was the procedure of choice for primary and recurrent prolapse of the anterior and posterior vaginal wall. An implant was used to treat 45% of anterior recurrences and 25% of posterior recurrences. Vaginal hysterectomy and repair were the procedures of choice for uterovaginal prolapse. Sacrospinous hysteropexy was the uterine preservation procedure of choice, preferred by 41%. For post-hysterectomy vault prolapse, sacrospinous colpopexy and vaginal repair was preferred by 65% of respondents. Between 2007 and 2015, there was a substantial decrease in respondents’ usage of implants across all indications except for midurethral slings and sacrocolpo/hysteropexy. Forty-two percent of respondents changed their practice as a result of Prolift® and Prosima® being withdrawn. Conclusion: There is a trend toward increasing use of various native tissue prolapse repair procedures and midurethral slings, and less utilisation of transvaginal mesh for prolapse.
|Number of pages||6|
|Journal||Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology|
|Publication status||Published - 1 Feb 2019|
- urinary incontinence