Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 4/2012

01-04-2012

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of women’s perceptions of transvaginal surgery

Authors: Juliane Bingener, Jeff A. Sloan, Karthik Ghosh, Andrea McConico, Andrea Mariani

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 4/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Prior surveys evaluating women’s perceptions of transvaginal surgery both support and refute the acceptability of transvaginal access. Most surveys employed mainly quantitative analysis, limiting the insight into the women’s perspective. In this mixed-methods study, we include qualitative and quantitative methodology to assess women’s perceptions of transvaginal procedures.

Methods

Women seen at the outpatient clinics of a tertiary-care center were asked to complete a survey. Demographics and preferences for appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and tubal ligation were elicited, along with open-ended questions about concerns or benefits of transvaginal access. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed to examine the impact of age, education, parity, and prior transvaginal procedures on preferences. For the qualitative evaluation, content analysis by independent investigators identified themes, issues, and concerns raised in the comments.

Results

The completed survey tool was returned by 409 women (grouped mean age 53 years, mean number of 2 children, 82% ≥some college education, and 56% with previous transvaginal procedure). The transvaginal approach was acceptable for tubal ligation to 59%, for appendectomy to 43%, and for cholecystectomy to 41% of the women. The most frequently mentioned factors that would make women prefer a vaginal approach were decreased invasiveness (14.4%), recovery time (13.9%), scarring (13.7%), pain (6%), and surgical entry location relative to organ removed (4.4%). The most frequently mentioned concerns about the vaginal approach were the possibility of complications/safety (14.7%), pain (9%), infection (5.6%), and recovery time (4.9%). A number of women voiced technical concerns about the vaginal approach.

Conclusions

As in prior studies, scarring and pain were important issues to be considered, but recovery time and increased invasiveness were also in the “top five” list. The surveyed women appeared to actively participate in evaluating the technical components of the procedures.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Solomon D, Lentz R, Duffy A, Bell R, Roberts KE (2011) Female sexual function after pure transvaginal appendectomy: a cohort study. Digestive Disease Week 2011, Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL Solomon D, Lentz R, Duffy A, Bell R, Roberts KE (2011) Female sexual function after pure transvaginal appendectomy: a cohort study. Digestive Disease Week 2011, Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL
2.
go back to reference Ott D (1901) Die direkte Beleuchtung der Bauchhoehle, der Harnblase, des Dickdams and des Uterus zu diagnostischen und operativen Zwecken. Rev Med Tcheque (Prague) 2:27–29 Ott D (1901) Die direkte Beleuchtung der Bauchhoehle, der Harnblase, des Dickdams and des Uterus zu diagnostischen und operativen Zwecken. Rev Med Tcheque (Prague) 2:27–29
3.
go back to reference Federlein M, Borchert D, Muller V, Atas Y, Fritze F, Burghardt J, Elling D, Gellert K (2010) Transvaginal video-assisted cholecystectomy in clinical practice. Surg Endosc 24:2444–2452PubMedCrossRef Federlein M, Borchert D, Muller V, Atas Y, Fritze F, Burghardt J, Elling D, Gellert K (2010) Transvaginal video-assisted cholecystectomy in clinical practice. Surg Endosc 24:2444–2452PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Gero D, Lukovich P, Hulesch B, Palhazy T, Kecskedi B, Kupcsulik P (2010) Inpatients and specialists’ opinions about natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Technol Int 19:79–84PubMed Gero D, Lukovich P, Hulesch B, Palhazy T, Kecskedi B, Kupcsulik P (2010) Inpatients and specialists’ opinions about natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Technol Int 19:79–84PubMed
5.
go back to reference Omana JJ, Mistry S, Herron D, Kini S (2010) Perception of NOTES among health care workers and medical students. Surg Innov 17:63–68PubMedCrossRef Omana JJ, Mistry S, Herron D, Kini S (2010) Perception of NOTES among health care workers and medical students. Surg Innov 17:63–68PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Peterson CY, Ramamoorthy S, Andrews B, Horgan S, Talamini M, Chock A (2009) Women’s positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1770–1774PubMedCrossRef Peterson CY, Ramamoorthy S, Andrews B, Horgan S, Talamini M, Chock A (2009) Women’s positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1770–1774PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Strickland AD, Norwood MG, Behnia-Willison F, Olakkengil SA, Hewett PJ (2010) Transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a survey of women’s views on a new technique. Surg Endosc 24:2424–2431PubMedCrossRef Strickland AD, Norwood MG, Behnia-Willison F, Olakkengil SA, Hewett PJ (2010) Transvaginal natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery (NOTES): a survey of women’s views on a new technique. Surg Endosc 24:2424–2431PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Swanstrom LL, Volckmann E, Hungness E, Soper NJ (2009) Patient attitudes and expectations regarding natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1519–1525PubMedCrossRef Swanstrom LL, Volckmann E, Hungness E, Soper NJ (2009) Patient attitudes and expectations regarding natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 23:1519–1525PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Tsin DA, Castro-Perez R, Davila MR, Davila F (2010) Postoperative patient attitudes and perceptions of transvaginal cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20:119–121PubMedCrossRef Tsin DA, Castro-Perez R, Davila MR, Davila F (2010) Postoperative patient attitudes and perceptions of transvaginal cholecystectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 20:119–121PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Drelichman E (2008) Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery as a technique for cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 67:854–860PubMedCrossRef Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Drelichman E (2008) Patient perception of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery as a technique for cholecystectomy. Gastrointest Endosc 67:854–860PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Volckmann ET, Hungness ES, Soper NJ, Swanstrom LL (2009) Surgeon perceptions of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). J Gastrointest Surg 13:1401–1410PubMedCrossRef Volckmann ET, Hungness ES, Soper NJ, Swanstrom LL (2009) Surgeon perceptions of Natural Orifice Translumenal Endoscopic Surgery (NOTES). J Gastrointest Surg 13:1401–1410PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Becerra Garcia FC, Romo-Medrano Mora KE (2010) Our perception of “Women’s positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery”: let the voices be heard, not just counted. Surg Endosc 24:1226–1228PubMedCrossRef Becerra Garcia FC, Romo-Medrano Mora KE (2010) Our perception of “Women’s positive perception of transvaginal NOTES surgery”: let the voices be heard, not just counted. Surg Endosc 24:1226–1228PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF (2008) Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Family Med 6:331–339CrossRef Cohen DJ, Crabtree BF (2008) Evaluative criteria for qualitative research in health care: controversies and recommendations. Ann Family Med 6:331–339CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of women’s perceptions of transvaginal surgery
Authors
Juliane Bingener
Jeff A. Sloan
Karthik Ghosh
Andrea McConico
Andrea Mariani
Publication date
01-04-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 4/2012
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-011-1984-7

Other articles of this Issue 4/2012

Surgical Endoscopy 4/2012 Go to the issue