Current Use of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification by AUGS and ICS Members
Current Use of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification by AUGS and ICS Members
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/spv.0b013e318207c904
复制
发表时间：
2011-03-01
影响因子：
1.6
通讯作者：
Brubaker, Linda
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pham, Thythy;Burgart, Alyssa;Brubaker, Linda
目的：了解美国泌尿妇科学会（AUGS）和国际尿失禁学会（ICS）成员盆腔器官脱垂定量（POP-Q）的使用现状。方法：AUGS和ICS的手术活跃成员完成了一份关于他们使用POP-Q的基于网络的问卷调查，包括关于被调查者的临床培训、手术经验和实践环境的问题。POP-Q使用者描述了他们使用POP-Q的情况，包括患者的体位、测量或辅助暴露的工具、张力的使用和膀胱容量。还对POP-Q系统的优缺点进行了评估。结果：308名应答者中位数为8年（范围0-35年）独立完成POP手术。大多数来自美国（70%），在一个共同执业（64%），至少2年的奖学金培训（61%），并有学员参与病人护理（81%）。在受访者中，76%的人使用POP-Q；然而，POP-Q的技术各不相同。24%的人没有使用POP-Q，三分之二的人报告说他们过去使用过POP-Q。对于这些个体，脱垂描述使用巴登-沃克（57%）、描述性词汇（38%）或其他分级（7%）。超过50%的非用户报告说POP-Q“太耗时”，或者他们的“同事不使用它”。“结论：尽管大多数接受调查的AUGS和ICS成员都在使用POP-Q，但我们在日常使用POP-Q的实践中发现了变异性。为了进一步提高《标准- q》的传播效益，提供循证指导的修订可能是值得改进的。
Objective: To determine the current use of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) by members of the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) and the International Continence Society (ICS).Methods: Surgically active members of AUGS and ICS completed a Web-based questionnaire about their use of the POP-Q and included queries regarding respondent's clinical training, surgical experience, and practice setting. Users of POP-Q described their POP-Q use including patient's position, tools used to measure or assist with exposure, use of strain, and bladder volume. Strengths and weaknesses of the POP-Q system were also assessed.Results: The 308 respondents had a median of 8 years (range, 0-35 years) of independent performance of POP surgery. Most were from the United States (70%), in a shared practice (64%), with at least 2 years of fellowship training (61%), and had trainees participating in patient care (81%). Of the respondents, 76% reported using the POP-Q; however, the technique of POP-Q varied. Of the 24% not using the POP-Q, two-thirds reported past POP-Q use. For these individuals, prolapse description was done using Baden-Walker (57%), descriptive words (38%), or other grades (7%). More than 50% of nonusers reported that the POP-Q is "too time-consuming'' or that their "colleagues do not use it.''Conclusions: Although most surveyed members of AUGS and ICS are using the POP-Q, we detected variability in the day-to-day practice of POP-Q use. To further advance the communication benefits of the POP-Q, a revision that provides evidence-based guidance may be a worthwhile refinement.