{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,4,13]],"date-time":"2026-04-13T20:31:09Z","timestamp":1776112269725,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":25,"publisher":"Springer Science and Business Media LLC","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,26]],"date-time":"2020-10-26T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1603670400000},"content-version":"tdm","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"},{"start":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,26]],"date-time":"2020-10-26T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1603670400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0"}],"funder":[{"DOI":"10.13039\/501100006209","name":"Radboud University Medical Center","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","id":[{"id":"10.13039\/501100006209","id-type":"DOI","asserted-by":"crossref"}]}],"content-domain":{"domain":["link.springer.com"],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Int Urogynecol J"],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,4]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Introduction and hypothesis<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>The modified Manchester (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH) are the most common uterus-preserving surgical procedures for uterine descent. Little is known about gynecologists\u2019 preferences regarding the two interventions. The study\u2019s aim was to identify which factors influence Dutch (uro)gynecologists when choosing one of these techniques.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>This qualitative study consists of ten semi-structured interviews with Dutch (uro)gynecologists using predetermined, open explorative questions, based on a structured topic list<jats:bold>.<\/jats:bold> An inductive content analysis was performed using Atlas.ti.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>For SSH, the majority (6\/10 gynecologists) reported the more dorsal change of direction of the vaginal axis as a disadvantage and expected more cystocele recurrences (7\/10). The most reported disadvantage of MM was the risk of cervical stenosis (7\/10). Four gynecologists found MM not to be appropriate for patients with higher stage uterine prolapse. The quality of the uterosacral ligaments was related to the chance of recurrence according to five gynecologists. Patient counseling was biased toward one of the uterus-preserving operations (7\/10). Four gynecologists stated they make the final decision while two let patient-preference lead the final decision.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec><jats:sec>\n                <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                <jats:p>Preference for one of the uterus-preserving interventions is mainly based on the gynecologist\u2019s own experience and background. The lack of information regarding these two uterus-preserving procedures hampers evidence-based decision making, which explains the practice pattern variation. In conclusion, further research is needed to improve evidence-based counseling and shared decision making regarding the choice of procedure.<\/jats:p>\n              <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-020-04568-y","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,26]],"date-time":"2020-10-26T23:02:32Z","timestamp":1603753352000},"page":"835-840","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/springer_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":10,"title":["Gynecologists\u2019 perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester"],"prefix":"10.1007","volume":"32","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0002-1547-4757","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Rosa A.","family":"Enklaar","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Brigitte A. B.","family":"Essers","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Leanne","family":"ter Horst","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Kirsten B.","family":"Kluivers","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]},{"given":"Mirjam","family":"Weemhoff","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"role":"author","vocabulary":"crossref"}]}],"member":"297","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,26]]},"reference":[{"issue":"3","key":"4568_CR1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"262","DOI":"10.1111\/j.1479-828X.2010.01145.x","volume":"50","author":"R Vanspauwen","year":"2010","unstructured":"Vanspauwen R, Seman E, Dwyer P. Survey of current management of prolapse in Australia and New Zealand. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2010;50(3):262\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1111\/j.1479-828X.2010.01145.x.","journal-title":"Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol"},{"issue":"4","key":"4568_CR2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"225","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0b013e3182995107","volume":"19","author":"JJ Yune","year":"2013","unstructured":"Yune JJ, Siddighi S. Perceptions and practice patterns of general gynecologists regarding urogynecology and pelvic reconstructive surgery. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(4):225\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/SPV.0b013e3182995107.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"issue":"6","key":"4568_CR3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"795","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-017-3476-3","volume":"29","author":"S Jha","year":"2018","unstructured":"Jha S, Cutner A, Moran P. The UK National Prolapse Survey: 10 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(6):795\u2013801. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-017-3476-3.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"key":"4568_CR4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"h3717","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.h3717","volume":"351","author":"RJ Detollenaere","year":"2015","unstructured":"Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB, et al. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial. BMJ (Clin Res ed). 2015;351:h3717. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.h3717.","journal-title":"BMJ (Clin Res ed)"},{"key":"4568_CR5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"l5149","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.l5149","volume":"366","author":"SFM Schulten","year":"2019","unstructured":"Schulten SFM, Detollenaere RJ, Stekelenburg J, IntHout J, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HWF. Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial. BMJ (Clin Res ed). 2019;366:l5149. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmj.l5149.","journal-title":"BMJ (Clin Res ed)"},{"issue":"2","key":"4568_CR6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"257","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-016-3119-0","volume":"28","author":"I Bergman","year":"2017","unstructured":"Bergman I, Soderberg MW, Kjaeldgaard A, Ek M. Cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy: a population-based register study. Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(2):257\u201366. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-016-3119-0.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"11","key":"4568_CR7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1313","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-009-0945-3","volume":"20","author":"TA de Boer","year":"2009","unstructured":"de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB, Withagen MI, Vierhout ME. The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(11):1313\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-009-0945-3.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct"},{"key":"4568_CR8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"Cd012376","DOI":"10.1002\/14651858.cd012376","volume":"10","author":"C Maher","year":"2016","unstructured":"Maher C, Feiner B, Baessler K, Christmann-Schmid C, Haya N, Brown J. Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse. The Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:Cd012376. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/14651858.cd012376.","journal-title":"The Cochrane Database Syst Rev"},{"issue":"3","key":"4568_CR9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"431","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-017-3519-9","volume":"29","author":"CK Tolstrup","year":"2018","unstructured":"Tolstrup CK, Husby KR, Lose G, Kopp TI, Viborg PH, Kesmodel US, et al. The Manchester-Fothergill procedure versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension: a matched historical cohort study. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(3):431\u201340. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-017-3519-9.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"5","key":"4568_CR10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"781","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-012-1934-5","volume":"24","author":"RJ Detollenaere","year":"2013","unstructured":"Detollenaere RJ, den Boon J, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME, van Eijndhoven HW. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse and uterine descent in the Netherlands. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(5):781\u20138. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-012-1934-5.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"2","key":"4568_CR11","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"321","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-018-3852-7","volume":"31","author":"KR Husby","year":"2020","unstructured":"Husby KR, Lose G, Klarskov N. Trends in apical prolapse surgery between 2010 and 2016 in Denmark. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(2):321\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-018-3852-7.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"9898","key":"4568_CR12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1121","DOI":"10.1016\/s0140-6736(13)61215-5","volume":"382","author":"JD Birkmeyer","year":"2013","unstructured":"Birkmeyer JD, Reames BN, McCulloch P, Carr AJ, Campbell WB, Wennberg JE. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet (London, England). 2013;382(9898):1121\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s0140-6736(13)61215-5.","journal-title":"Lancet (London, England)"},{"issue":"5","key":"4568_CR13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"517","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-011-1379-2","volume":"22","author":"S Jha","year":"2011","unstructured":"Jha S, Moran P. The UK national prolapse survey: 5 years on. Int Urogynecol J. 2011;22(5):517\u201328. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-011-1379-2.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"3","key":"4568_CR14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"325","DOI":"10.1002\/nau.20331","volume":"26","author":"S Jha","year":"2007","unstructured":"Jha S, Moran PA. National survey on the management of prolapse in the UK. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(3):325\u201331; discussion 332. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/nau.20331.","journal-title":"Neurourol Urodyn"},{"key":"4568_CR15","unstructured":"Green JTN. Qualitative methods for health research. 4th edn. Sage Publications Ltd. 2018."},{"issue":"3","key":"4568_CR16","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"645","DOI":"10.1067\/mob.2003.75","volume":"188","author":"M Hefni","year":"2003","unstructured":"Hefni M, El-Toukhy T, Bhaumik J, Katsimanis E. Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(3):645\u201350.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"6 Pt 1","key":"4568_CR17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1465","DOI":"10.1016\/s0002-9378(98)70041-9","volume":"179","author":"SW Smilen","year":"1998","unstructured":"Smilen SW, Saini J, Wallach SJ, Porges RF. The risk of cystocele after sacrospinous ligament fixation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(6 Pt 1):1465\u201371; discussion 1471-1462. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/s0002-9378(98)70041-9.","journal-title":"Am J Obstet Gynecol"},{"issue":"8","key":"4568_CR18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1193","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-018-3622-6","volume":"29","author":"SH Oversand","year":"2018","unstructured":"Oversand SH, Staff AC, Borstad E, Svenningsen R. The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(8):1193\u2013201. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-018-3622-6.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"3","key":"4568_CR19","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"228","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijgo.2005.12.002","volume":"92","author":"A Ayhan","year":"2006","unstructured":"Ayhan A, Esin S, Guven S, Salman C, Ozyuncu O. The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstetr Off Organ Int Feder Gynaecol Obstetr. 2006;92(3):228\u201333. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ijgo.2005.12.002.","journal-title":"Int J Gynaecol Obstetr Off Organ Int Feder Gynaecol Obstetr"},{"issue":"3","key":"4568_CR20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"321","DOI":"10.1007\/s00192-014-2518-3","volume":"26","author":"S Jha","year":"2015","unstructured":"Jha S, Gray T. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of native tissue repair for pelvic organ prolapse on sexual function. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(3):321\u20137. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-014-2518-3.","journal-title":"Int Urogynecol J"},{"issue":"2","key":"4568_CR21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"213","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jsxm.2015.12.006","volume":"13","author":"RJ Detollenaere","year":"2016","unstructured":"Detollenaere RJ, Kreuwel IA, Dijkstra JR, Kluivers KB, van Eijndhoven HW. The impact of sacrospinous hysteropexy and vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments on sexual function in women with uterine prolapse: a secondary analysis of a randomized comparative study. J Sex Med. 2016;13(2):213\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.jsxm.2015.12.006.","journal-title":"J Sex Med"},{"issue":"2","key":"4568_CR22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"257","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2005.11.028","volume":"127","author":"MA Hefni","year":"2006","unstructured":"Hefni MA, El-Toukhy TA. Long-term outcome of vaginal sacrospinous colpopexy for marked uterovaginal and vault prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;127(2):257\u201363. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2005.11.028.","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"issue":"2","key":"4568_CR23","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"103","DOI":"10.1097\/SPV.0b013e31827d8667","volume":"19","author":"AC Frick","year":"2013","unstructured":"Frick AC, Barber MD, Paraiso MF, Ridgeway B, Jelovsek JE, Walters MD. Attitudes toward hysterectomy in women undergoing evaluation for uterovaginal prolapse. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2013;19(2):103\u20139. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/SPV.0b013e31827d8667.","journal-title":"Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg"},{"key":"4568_CR24","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"79","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2017.11.016","volume":"220","author":"MN van IJsselmuiden","year":"2018","unstructured":"van IJsselmuiden MN, Detollenaere RJ, Gerritse MBE, Kluivers KB, Bongers MY, van Eijndhoven HWF. Dutch women's attitudes towards hysterectomy and uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018;220:79\u201383. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2017.11.016.","journal-title":"Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol"},{"issue":"1","key":"4568_CR25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"49","DOI":"10.1186\/s12905-019-0749-7","volume":"19","author":"SFM Schulten","year":"2019","unstructured":"Schulten SFM, Enklaar RA, Kluivers KB, Van Leijsen SAL, Jansen-Van Der Weide MC, Adang EMM, et al. Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study). BMC Womens Health. 2019;19(1) (no pagination):49.","journal-title":"BMC Womens Health"}],"container-title":["International Urogynecology Journal"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00192-020-04568-y.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/article\/10.1007\/s00192-020-04568-y\/fulltext.html","content-type":"text\/html","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"text-mining"},{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/content\/pdf\/10.1007\/s00192-020-04568-y.pdf","content-type":"application\/pdf","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2021,10,26]],"date-time":"2021-10-26T00:13:15Z","timestamp":1635207195000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/link.springer.com\/10.1007\/s00192-020-04568-y"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,26]]},"references-count":25,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2021,4]]}},"alternative-id":["4568"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s00192-020-04568-y","relation":{},"ISSN":["0937-3462","1433-3023"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0937-3462","type":"print"},{"value":"1433-3023","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2020,10,26]]},"assertion":[{"value":"10 August 2020","order":1,"name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"14 October 2020","order":2,"name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"value":"26 October 2020","order":3,"name":"first_online","label":"First Online","group":{"name":"ArticleHistory","label":"Article History"}},{"order":1,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Compliance with ethical standards"}},{"value":"None.","order":2,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Conflicts of interest"}},{"value":"Not applicable (not obligatory according to the Dutch law (WMO)).","order":3,"name":"Ethics","group":{"name":"EthicsHeading","label":"Ethical\/institutional review board approval"}}]}}