Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2016 Dec;17(12):87.
doi: 10.1007/s11934-016-0642-y.

Failure of Expectations in Vaginal Surgery: Lack of Appropriate Consent, Goals and Expectations of Surgery

Affiliations
Review

Failure of Expectations in Vaginal Surgery: Lack of Appropriate Consent, Goals and Expectations of Surgery

Debjyoti Karmakar et al. Curr Urol Rep. 2016 Dec.

Abstract

Introduction and background: Vaginal surgery for the treatment of urinary stress incontinence (USI) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using a synthetic polypropylene mesh is going through a time of unprecedented turmoil and debate. This review focuses on vaginal surgery for vaginal prolapse and looks at the current scientific literature on issues surrounding surgery including consent and expectations.

Safety and effectiveness of surgical options: Synthetic mesh has been used both abdominally and vaginally to improve the effectiveness of POP surgery. The relatively high incidence of mesh complications particularly with vaginal surgery has lead to repeat surgery, disappointment and litigation in some women. The benefits and risks of the various POP procedures are reviewed including native tissue repair, uterine conservation and obliterative vaginal surgery.

Conclusion: Women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and their doctors have many treatment options. The benefits and risks should be discussed as part of shared decision making.

Keywords: Consent; Patient-reported outcomes; Surgical complications; Vaginal surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Int Urogynecol J. 2015 Feb;26(2):195-200 - PubMed
    1. Int Urogynecol J. 2012 Apr;23 Suppl 1:S7-14 - PubMed
    1. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009 May-Jun;16(3):360-4 - PubMed
    1. Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Jul;25(7):857-62 - PubMed
    1. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008 Aug;34(4):449-56 - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources