Purpose: Surgical repair is considered the mainstay of genital prolapse management. Several procedures are available both by vaginal and abdominal route, with and without mesh augmentation. The Italian UroGynecology Association (AIUG) promoted this survey with the aim of evaluating current variations in the surgical management of various types of prolapse in different clinical settings and to compare practice amongst practitioners working in high- and medium/low-volume centers.
Participants and methods: The questionnaire examined four contentious areas of contemporary prolapse management. The questionnaire was emailed to the AIUG gynecologist members in Italy in 2023.
Results: A total of 104 complete responses were received, resulting in a 6.9% response rate. Native-tissue repair represents the preferred option in most scenarios and was proposed by 76%, 68.3%, 94.2%, and 52.9% of practitioners in the case of primary anterior, uterovaginal, posterior, and vault prolapse respectively. The use of vaginal mesh in these scenarios is very limited. Native tissue repairs in case of recurrent anterior, posterior, or apical recurrent prolapse would be performed only by 37.5%, 47.1%, and 28% of surgeons respectively. In these cases, the use of mesh - by vaginal and abdominal route - increased significantly.
Conclusion: This survey showed that in Italy surgical management of genital prolapse is very heterogeneous. Native-tissue repair remains the preferred option, but practitioners tend to lose confidence in mesh-free procedures in case of prolapse recurrence. Despite mesh kits recalls and recommendations, the use of transvaginal implants is still considered an option for prolapse repair.
Keywords: management; pelvic floor; pelvic organ prolapse; surgery; survey; urogynecology.
© 2024 Frigerio et al.