Pelvic organ prolapse patients' attitudes and preferences regarding their uterus: comparing German- and Russian-speaking women.
Adult
Attitude to Health
/ ethnology
Body Image
/ psychology
Cross-Cultural Comparison
Female
Germany
Humans
Hysterectomy
/ psychology
Language
Middle Aged
Organ Sparing Treatments
/ psychology
Patient Preference
Pelvic Organ Prolapse
/ psychology
Prospective Studies
Russia
Sexual Behavior
/ psychology
Surveys and Questionnaires
Uterus
/ surgery
Attitude
Pelvic organ prolapse
Preference
Uterus score
Uterus-sparing prolapse surgery
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
received:
25
11
2018
accepted:
28
02
2019
pubmed:
28
4
2019
medline:
16
5
2020
entrez:
28
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to compare preferences of patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) regarding their uterus between German- and Russian-speaking areas. Six urogynecologic tertiary referral centers participated in this prospective study: three centers from German-speaking countries and three from different regions of Russia. To assess the uterus-related preferences as well as the attitude toward hysterectomy versus uterus-sparing prolapse surgery, we developed a structured questionnaire that included 5-point Likert scales related to benefit of uterus (BOU) and benefit of not having uterus (BNU). Each scale consisted of 12 items (range of possible scores: 12-60). Finally, patients were asked if they preferred uterus removal or preservation when undergoing prolapse surgery. One hundred and seventy-eight German-speaking and 206 Russian-speaking patients were included in the study. There was no significant difference in patients' preference before undergoing POP surgery regarding uterus preservation versus hysterectomy between German- and Russian-speaking patients: 40% of German-speaking and 54% of Russian-speaking patients preferred to retain their uterus before undergoing POP surgery. Comparison of BOU mean scores showed a significant difference between groups: 20.6 ± 6.7 for German-speaking compared with 32.5 ± 9.1 for Russian-speaking patients (p < 0.01). The Russian-speaking group had significantly higher mean scores on domains sexuality, body image, and partnership of the BOU scale (2.6 ± 1.0 vs. 1.8 ± 0.9 for sexuality; 2.4 ± 1.1 vs. 1.5 ± 0.7 for body image, and 2.6 ± 0.9 vs. 1.6 ± 0.7 for partnership domains; p < 0.05). Although a large proportion of German- and Russian-speaking patients prefers uterus preservation when undergoing prolapse surgery, the uterus was more important for sexuality, partnership, and body image in Russian-speaking patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31028419
doi: 10.1007/s00192-019-03918-9
pii: 10.1007/s00192-019-03918-9
pmc: PMC6861192
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2077-2083Références
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Aug;211(2):174.e1-9
pubmed: 24631437
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Mar;115(3):543-51
pubmed: 20177285
Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Nov;27(11):1673-1680
pubmed: 27116197
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015 Mar;291(3):573-7
pubmed: 25200688
Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Sep;24(9):1481-7
pubmed: 23361855
J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000;9 Suppl 2:S39-50
pubmed: 10714744
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Jan;220:79-83
pubmed: 29175132
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;209(5):470.e1-6
pubmed: 23921090
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Sep;21(9):1071-8
pubmed: 20424822
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Nov;209(5):481.e1-6
pubmed: 23748108
Sex Health. 2018 Nov;15(5):396-402
pubmed: 30048604
Urol Nurs. 2009 Jul-Aug;29(4):239-46
pubmed: 19718939
J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000;9 Suppl 2:S63-7
pubmed: 10714746
J Psychosom Res. 2005 Sep;59(3):117-29
pubmed: 16198184
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013 Mar-Apr;19(2):103-9
pubmed: 23442508
Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014 Sep-Oct;20(5):267-71
pubmed: 25181376
J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2000;9 Suppl 2:S51-61
pubmed: 10714745
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 May;204(5):441.e1-5
pubmed: 21292234
Int Urogynecol J. 2010 Feb;21(2):163-72
pubmed: 19756341