No abstract

Purpose Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to reduce surgical morbidity and length of stay across various procedures. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the literature for best practices of ERAS elements in abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), to determine if there is sufficient evidence to create best practice guidelines for this procedure. Materials and Methods Following the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‐analysis (PRISMA) statement, we performed a review using Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Eligible articles contained ERAS components and postoperative outcomes of ASC published in English since 1997. Thirty‐five full‐text articles were selected for final qualitative analysis. Results Poor functional status before ASC was associated with a longer length of hospital stay. Laparoscopic ASC was associated with a shorter postoperative hospital stay, with no difference between laparoscopic and robotic approaches. Epidural analgesia in addition to spinal anesthesia lowered levels of pain throughout the postoperative stay in laparoscopic ASC. A multimodal bowel regimen shortened time to first bowel movement compared to a single agent regimen. Removing a Foley catheter may lead to sooner first spontaneous void but may result in higher rates of urinary retention and urinary tract infection. Studies investigating preoperative bowel preparation, preanesthesia medication, and multidose antimicrobial prophylaxis did not show significant benefit. Conclusions Best practices for ASC can be developed based on current findings from the literature and extrapolation of evidence from other surgeries where ASC‐specific elements are missing, with the ability to modify the pathways as new data become available.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: Limited patient understanding due to challenges in physician-patient communication and inadequate patient education materials (PEMs) can result in poor outcomes after pelvic organ prolapse (POP) repair.Our objective was to identify how patients learned about POP and review their perception of available educational tools. Methods: Patients with a history of POP were recruited using ResearchMatch and invited to participate in a virtual semi-structured interview where they were shown a website, brochure, and video pertaining to POP. Information regarding patient preference for PEMs was obtained. The interviews were transcribed, coded, and qualitative data analysis was performed using grounded theory methodology.Results: Qualitative analysis of interviews of 13 participants averaging 58 years old yielded several preliminary themes including: insufficient information to guide treatment decisions, preference for multimodal, dynamic, and comprehensive materials, and lack of support leading to avoidance of care, misinformation, and self-advocacy mechanisms. Emerging concepts included: lack of complete information regarding POP treatment resulted in misinformation, stress and desperation, distrust of healthcare providers leading to feelings of isolation, desire of support groups, and loss of follow up, and a desire for well-organized, detailed, multimodal, and destigmatizing materials as a guide to their disease process, prevention and risk factors, its natural progression, and treatment decisions. Participants developed self-reliant strategies for making treatment decisions, including the use of online resources, advice from friends, and independent search for more specialized physicians. Conclusions: Women with POP reported a lack of information and support which resulted in the generation of self-coping mechanisms. This led to significant anxiety surrounding their diagnosis and treatment and poor satisfaction. Developing a reproducible methodology to create evidence-based PEMs will significantly decrease patient misinformation, apprehension, and use of inaccurate sources of information.