Search

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has had a major impact on how patients are evaluated and treated for diseases and conditions in normal patient care Due to lack of effective treatments for this virus or vaccines to prevent infection, focus is placed on infection prevention through use of social distancing, quarantine, and face masks To prevent COVID-19 infections in healthcare settings, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has recommended decreasing or eliminating nonurgent office visits Telehealth has emerged as an alternative way to deliver effective patient care, while reducing patient and physician exposure to the virus Telehealth is any remote healthcare process, including provider training or team meetings, whereas telemedicine refers to use of specific technology to connect a patient to a provider High quality of care can and must be provided by Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgeons (FPMRS) as well as other specialists and health professionals using telemedicine Because of the health care emergency during the pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have broadened access to and reimbursement for telemedicine services Rapid advances in communications technology and widespread wireless access in many modern households have allowed the adoption and integration of telemedicine into urogynecology and other health practices There are no clear guidelines for the use of telemedicine in FPMRS The aim of this study was to conduct an expedited review of the evidence and to provide guidance for managing common outpatient FPRMS conditions during the COVID pandemic using telemedicine FPMRS conditions were grouped into those that likely to require different treatment with virtual management compared with in-person visits, and those that could use accepted behavioral counseling and not deviate from current management paradigms Rapid systematic review methodology was used to screen for articles related to 4 topics: (1) telemedicine in FPMRS, (2) pessary management, (3) urinary tract infections, and (4) urinary retention In addition, 4 other topics were addressed (based on past systematic reviews and national or international society guidelines): (1) urinary incontinence, (2) vaginal prolapse, (3) fecal incontinence, and (4) defecatory dysfunction Finally, clinical experience and expertise were pooled to reach consensus on 4 remaining areas: (1) FPMRS conditions amenable to virtual management, (2) urgent care scenarios requiring in-person visits, (3) symptoms that should alert providers to a possible COVID infection, and (4) special consideration for managing patients with known or suspected COVID-19 Overall, behavioral, medical, and conservative management provided in a virtual setting (via phone or Internet communication) will be valuable as first-line treatments Certain situations were identified that require different treatments in the virtual setting than in person, whereas others were shown to require an in-person visit despite risks of COVID-19 exposure and spread of infection This study presents guidance for treating FPMRS conditions via telemedicine in a format that can be actively referenced The strengths of the study include use of an expedited review method, extensive experience of the authors in conducting systematic reviews, as well as being seasoned FPMRS practitioners Main limitations include the rapid methodology, lack of data regarding many of the pertinent questions, and missed salient studies, because of the expedited evidence methods

Objective We aimed to systematically review the literature on apical pelvic organ prolapse surgery with uterine preservation compared with prolapse surgeries including hysterectomy and provide evidence-based guidelines. Data Sources The sources for our data were MEDLINE, Cochrane, and clinicaltrials.gov databases from inception to January 2017. Study Eligibility Criteria We accepted randomized and nonrandomized studies of uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries compared with those involving hysterectomy. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods Studies were extracted for participant information, intervention, comparator, efficacy outcomes, and adverse events, and they were individually and collectively assessed for methodological quality. If 3 or more studies compared the same surgeries and reported the same outcome, a meta-analysis was performed. Results We screened 4467 abstracts and identified 94 eligible studies, 53 comparing uterine preservation to hysterectomy in prolapse surgery. Evidence was of moderate quality overall. Compared with hysterectomy plus mesh sacrocolpopexy, uterine preservation with sacrohysteropexy reduces mesh exposure, operative time, blood loss, and surgical cost without differences in prolapse recurrence. Compared with vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral suspension, uterine preservation in the form of laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy improves the C point and vaginal length on the pelvic organ prolapse quantification exam, estimated blood loss, postoperative pain and functioning, and hospital stay, but open abdominal sacrohysteropexy worsens bothersome urinary symptoms, operative time, and quality of life. Transvaginal mesh hysteropexy (vs with hysterectomy) decreases mesh exposure, reoperation for mesh exposure, postoperative bleeding, and estimated blood loss and improves posterior pelvic organ prolapse quantification measurement. Transvaginal uterosacral or sacrospinous hysteropexy or the Manchester procedure compared with vaginal hysterectomy with native tissue suspension both showed improved operative time and estimated blood loss and no worsening of prolapse outcomes with uterine preservation. However, there is a significant lack of data on prolapse outcomes >3 years after surgery, the role of uterine preservation in obliterative procedures, and longer-term risk of uterine pathology after uterine preservation. Conclusion Uterine-preserving prolapse surgeries improve operating time, blood loss, and risk of mesh exposure compared with similar surgical routes with concomitant hysterectomy and do not significantly change short-term prolapse outcomes. Surgeons may offer uterine preservation as an option to appropriate women who desire this choice during apical prolapse repair.

Objectives To identify risk factors associated with lower urinary tract injury at the time of performing hysterectomy for benign indications.