Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 6/2020

01-06-2020 | Stress Incontinence | Original Article

Social media awareness among non-urogynecologists regarding the current mesh discussions in urogynecology: a survey study

Authors: Adnan Orhan, Angie Rantell, Kemal Ozerkan, Isil Kasapoglu, Gokhan Ocakoglu, Kiper Aslan, Sevde Nur Mert, Gurkan Uncu, Linda Cardozo

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 6/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

There has been a great deal of discussion about mesh complications in urogynecology in recent years. However, awareness of other doctors who are not urogynecologists is unknown. This study was aimed at determining the level of awareness of mesh discussions among medical doctors whose specialty is not urology or gynecology.

Methods

A survey study was administered, and all medical doctors, except gynecologists and urologists, were invited. Respondent doctors were classified into four groups: King’s College Hospital (KCH), UK; Uludag University Hospital (UUH), Turkey; the United States (USA); and the world (WORLD). The primary outcome was the awareness of mesh discussion in urogynecology, and the secondary outcome was the social media awareness of the mesh discussion.

Results

1231 doctors responded to the survey. The awareness of the current mesh problems among the respondent doctors was 15.8% in KCH, 15.4% in UUH, 26.9% in the USA, and 16.2% in WORLD. The social media awareness about mesh problems was 20.8% in KCH, 20.3% in UUH, 32.8% in the USA, and 20.6% in WORLD. Although there were no differences among three of the groups with regard to primary and secondary outcomes, the USA group score was statistically significantly higher than the others.

Conclusions

Social media can influence doctors’ thinking on controversial academic issues. In this survey study, non-urogynecologist doctors in the USA cohort have higher awareness levels and a higher social media awareness level than other groups.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lensen EJ, Withagen MI, Kluivers KB, et al. Surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a historical review with emphasis on the anterior compartment. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(10):1593–602.CrossRef Lensen EJ, Withagen MI, Kluivers KB, et al. Surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse: a historical review with emphasis on the anterior compartment. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(10):1593–602.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(4):CD004014. Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, et al. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(4):CD004014.
3.
go back to reference Delorme E. Transobturator urethral suspension: mini-invasive procedure in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. Prog Urol. 2001;11(6):1306–13.PubMed Delorme E. Transobturator urethral suspension: mini-invasive procedure in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. Prog Urol. 2001;11(6):1306–13.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence in women: a review. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1592–604.CrossRef Lukacz ES, Santiago-Lastra Y, Albo ME, Brubaker L. Urinary incontinence in women: a review. JAMA. 2017;318(16):1592–604.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Jonsson Funk M, Edenfield AL, Pate V, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Wu JM. Trends in use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(1):79.e1–7.CrossRef Jonsson Funk M, Edenfield AL, Pate V, Visco AG, Weidner AC, Wu JM. Trends in use of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;208(1):79.e1–7.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Vergeldt TF, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1559–73.CrossRef Vergeldt TF, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1559–73.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Zacche MM, Mukhopadhyay S, Giarenis I. Trends in prolapse surgery in England. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(11):1689–95.CrossRef Zacche MM, Mukhopadhyay S, Giarenis I. Trends in prolapse surgery in England. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(11):1689–95.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Morling JR, McAllister DA, Agur W, Fischbacher CM, Glazener CM, Guerrero K, et al. Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997–2016: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;389(10069):629–40.CrossRef Morling JR, McAllister DA, Agur W, Fischbacher CM, Glazener CM, Guerrero K, et al. Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997–2016: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;389(10069):629–40.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Heneghan CJ, Goldacre B, Onakpoya I, et al. Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e017125.CrossRef Heneghan CJ, Goldacre B, Onakpoya I, et al. Trials of transvaginal mesh devices for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic database review of the US FDA approval process. BMJ Open. 2017;7(12):e017125.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Mangir N, Aldemir Dikici B, Chapple CR, MacNeil S. Landmarks in vaginal mesh development: polypropylene mesh for treatment of SUI and POP. Nat Rev Urol. 2019;16(11):675–89.CrossRef Mangir N, Aldemir Dikici B, Chapple CR, MacNeil S. Landmarks in vaginal mesh development: polypropylene mesh for treatment of SUI and POP. Nat Rev Urol. 2019;16(11):675–89.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Gurol-Urganci I, Geary RS, Mamza JB, Duckett J, El-Hamamsy D, Dolan L, et al. Long-term rate of mesh sling removal following midurethral mesh sling insertion among women with stress urinary incontinence. JAMA. 2018;320(16):1659–69.CrossRef Gurol-Urganci I, Geary RS, Mamza JB, Duckett J, El-Hamamsy D, Dolan L, et al. Long-term rate of mesh sling removal following midurethral mesh sling insertion among women with stress urinary incontinence. JAMA. 2018;320(16):1659–69.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Social media awareness among non-urogynecologists regarding the current mesh discussions in urogynecology: a survey study
Authors
Adnan Orhan
Angie Rantell
Kemal Ozerkan
Isil Kasapoglu
Gokhan Ocakoglu
Kiper Aslan
Sevde Nur Mert
Gurkan Uncu
Linda Cardozo
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04242-3

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

International Urogynecology Journal 6/2020 Go to the issue