2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-3073-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

If you could see what we see, would it bother you?

Abstract: Objective: The purpose of our study is to determine if the anatomic threshold for pelvic organ prolapse diagnosis and surgical success remains valid when the patient sees what we see on exam.Methods: 200 participants were assigned, by computer generated block randomization, to see one of 4 videos. Each video contained the same six clips representative of various degrees of anterior vaginal wall support. Participants were asked questions immediately after each clip.They were asked: "In your opinion, does this p… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

1
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For POP evaluation, we chose the more strict criteria because we lacked the subjectively reported outcome [13, 26]. Chances for POP(II+) increased by 8% for each additional year of age.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For POP evaluation, we chose the more strict criteria because we lacked the subjectively reported outcome [13, 26]. Chances for POP(II+) increased by 8% for each additional year of age.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This might inadvertently alter management decisions by health care providers for women with pelvic organ prolapse. For example, patients with a leading edge of 0 may be "inoperable 21 ", while a leading edge of +1 to +2 may receive a uterosacral ligament suspension, and a leading edge ≥ +3 may receive obliterative or mesh augmented apical suspension because preoperative prolapse stage is a predictor of symptomatic recurrence [22][23][24] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%