No abstract

Direct surgical repair of a levator avulsion is feasible at the time of prolapse surgery. However, its effect on prolapse recurrence and hiatal dimensions is relatively disappointing, suggesting that there often is microscopic trauma and functional muscle impairment in addition to the avulsion.

Aims The terminology of obstetric pelvic floor disorders should be defined and reported as part of a wider clinically oriented consensus. Methods This Report combines the input of members of two International Organizations, the International Continence Society (ICS) and the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). The process was supported by external referees. Appropriate clinical categories and a sub-classification were developed to give coding to definitions. An extensive process of 12 main rounds of internal and 2 rounds of external review was involved to exhaustively examine each definition, with decision-making by consensus. Results A terminology report for obstetric pelvic floor disorders, encompassing 357 separate definitions, has been developed. It is clinically-based with the most common diagnoses defined. Clarity and user-friendliness have been key aims to make it usable by different specialty groups and disciplines involved in the study and management of pregnancy, childbirth and female pelvic floor disorders. Clinical assessment, investigations, diagnosis, conservative and surgical treatments are major components. Illustrations have been included to supplement and clarify the text. Emerging concepts, in use in the literature and offering further research potential but requiring further validation, have been included as an Appendix. As with similar reports, interval (5–10 year) review is anticipated to maintain relevance of the document and ensure it remains as widely applicable as possible. Conclusion A consensus-based Terminology Report for obstetric pelvic floor disorders has been produced to support clinical practice and research.

Background: Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) can be associated with coagulopathy, which may be difficult to rapidly assess and may exacerbate blood loss. Rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) at the point of care can guide clinician choice of blood products and has been shown in some settings to reduce transfusions and improve outcomes. This hospital-based observational study aims to measure effects of a ROTEM-guided transfusion protocol on transfusion practice and clinical outcomes in patients with PPH managed in the operating theater. Study design and methods: We compared a retrospective cohort of 450 consecutive patients with PPH treated in the operating theater before the introduction of a ROTEM-guided transfusion algorithm in June 2016, with 450 patients treated after its introduction. Multivariate regression was used to evaluate the effect of ROTEM introduction on the primary outcome, patients requiring a packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion and adjusting for demographic and obstetric confounders. Secondary outcomes included other blood product transfusions, hysterectomy, and intensive care unit admission.Results: A total of 90 (20%) of patients treated prior to ROTEM introduction received a PRBC transfusion, compared with 102 (22.7%) of those treated after ROTEM introduction (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-2.0, p = .04). There was no difference in PRBC transfusion in patients undergoing caesarean section (95% CI 0.5-1.8, p = .99). There was a trend toward increased use of cryoprecipitate and reduced use of platelets and fresh frozen plasma after ROTEM introduction. Conclusion: In our institution, the introduction of ROTEM-guided transfusion did not reduce PRBC transfusion in patients with PPH treated in the operating theater.

Purpose Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are valuable tools in evaluating the outcomes of surgical treatment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and may be incorporated into related clinical quality registries. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating PROMs into the Australian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR). Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with SUI (N = 12) and their managing clinicians (N = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered content and face validity, appropriateness, and acceptability of three incontinence-specific, two pain, one anxiety and depression, one sexual function and one patient global impression of improvement instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for the APFPR. We analysed interview data into topics using conventional content analysis. Results Study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both participant groups suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, therefore only three instruments (one incontinence-specific, sexual function and patient global impression of improvement) will be included in the APFPR. Both clinicians and women agreed it would be appropriate to answer PROMs at baseline and then at 6- and 12-month postsurgically. Email, phone call and mail-out of the instruments were the preferred options for administration. Conclusion Most women and clinicians supported the feasibility of incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Participants believed the PROMs would demonstrate useful aggregate HRQoL data and have potential for use in individual care.

Introduction and hypothesis Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) are common pelvic floor disorders (PFDs). Owing to significant adverse events associated with mesh-related pelvic floor procedures (PFPs) in a proportion of the surgically treated population, and deficits in collection and reporting of these events, the Australian Government identified an urgent need for a tracking mechanism to improve safety and quality of care. The Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) was recently established following the 2018 Senate Committee Inquiry with the aim of tracking outcomes of PFP involving the use of devices and/or prostheses, with the objective of improving the health outcomes of women who undergo these procedures. This paper will describe the APFPR’s aims, development, implementation and possible challenges on the way to its establishment. Methods The APFPR has been developed and implemented in accordance with the national operating principles of clinical quality registries (CQRs). The minimum datasets (MDS) for the registry’s database have been developed using a modified Delphi process, and data are primarily being collected from participating surgeons. Patient recruitment is based on an opt-out approach or a waiver of consent. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) providing additional health and outcome information will be obtained from participating women to support safety monitoring of mesh-related adverse events. Results Currently in the Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) there are 32 sites from various jurisdictions across Australia, that have obtained relevant ethics and governance approvals to start patient recruitment and data collection as of January 2023. Additionally, there are two sites that are awaiting governance review and five sites that are having documentation compiled for submission. Seventeen sites have commenced patient registration and have entered data into the database. Thus far, we have 308 patients registered in the APFPR database. The registry also published its first status report and a consumer-friendly public report in 2022. Conclusions The registry will act as a systematic tracking mechanism by collecting outcomes on PFP, especially those involving devices and/or prostheses to improve safety and quality of care.

Background The Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) captures clinical and surgical data in women undergoing pelvic floor procedures. The inclusion of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the APFPR is a critical activity providing the additional patient perspective of their condition prior to surgery as well as monitoring beyond the usual post-surgical follow-up time. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of seven PROMs for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to determine the most suitable instrument for the APFPR. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with POP (n = 15) and their treating clinicians (n = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered appropriateness, content, and acceptability of seven POP-specific instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for inclusion in the APFPR. We analysed the interview data using conventional content analysis. Results All study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both women and clinicians suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, too long and confusing. The Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire was accepted widely amongst women and clinicians and recommended for inclusion in the APFPR. All participants agreed it would be appropriate to capture PROMs before surgery, and then followed up post-surgically. Email, phone call or postal mail-out were the preferred options for PROMs data collection. Conclusion Most women and clinicians supported incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Study participants believed that capturing PROMs would have potential use in individual care and improve outcomes of women with POP.

Background: The Australasian Pelvic Floor Procedure Registry (APFPR) captures clinical and surgical data in women undergoing pelvic floor procedures. The inclusion of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the APFPR is a critical activity providing the additional patient perspective of their condition prior to surgery as well as monitoring beyond the usual post-surgical follow-up time. This study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of seven PROMs for women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to determine the most suitable instrument for the APFPR. Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with women with POP (n = 15) and their treating clinicians (n = 11) in Victoria, Australia. Interview topics covered appropriateness, content, and acceptability of seven POP-specific instruments identified through the literature to determine their suitability and acceptability for inclusion in the APFPR. We analysed the interview data using conventional content analysis. Results: All study participants agreed that PROMs were needed for the APFPR. Both women and clinicians suggested that some of the instruments were ambiguous, too long and confusing. The Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire was accepted widely amongst women and clinicians and recommended for inclusion in the APFPR. All participants agreed it would be appropriate to capture PROMs before surgery, and then followed up post-surgically. Email, phone call or postal mail-out were the preferred options for PROMs data collection. Conclusion: Most women and clinicians supported incorporating PROMs in the APFPR. Study participants believed that capturing PROMs would have potential use in individual care and improve outcomes of women with POP.