Patient's preference for sacrospinous hysteropexy or modified Manchester operation: A discrete choice experiment

To investigate women's preference for modified Manchester (MM) or sacrospinous hysteropexy (SH) as surgery for uterine prolapse.

[1]  K. Gradel,et al.  Endometrial cancer after the Manchester procedure: a nationwide cohort study , 2021, International Urogynecology Journal.

[2]  R. Bremmer,et al.  Practice pattern variation: treatment of pelvic organ prolapse in The Netherlands , 2021, International Urogynecology Journal.

[3]  K. Kluivers,et al.  Gynecologists’ perspectives on two types of uterus-preserving surgical repair of uterine descent; sacrospinous hysteropexy versus modified Manchester , 2020, International Urogynecology Journal.

[4]  K. Glavind,et al.  Development of Cervical and Uterine Malignancies During Follow-Up After Manchester–Fothergill Procedure , 2020 .

[5]  K. Kluivers,et al.  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 , 2019, BMJ.

[6]  E. S. Tiersma,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) , 2019, BMC Women's Health.

[7]  F Reed Johnson,et al.  The Internal Validity of Discrete Choice Experiment Data: A Testing Tool for Quantitative Assessments. , 2019, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[8]  I. Giarenis,et al.  Trends in prolapse surgery in England , 2018, International Urogynecology Journal.

[9]  E. Balk,et al.  Uterine preservation vs hysterectomy in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a systematic review with meta‐analysis and clinical practice guidelines , 2018, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  A. Staff,et al.  The Manchester procedure: anatomical, subjective and sexual outcomes , 2018, International Urogynecology Journal.

[11]  K. Kluivers,et al.  Dutch women's attitudes towards hysterectomy and uterus preservation in surgical treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. , 2018, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[12]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments: A Guide to Model Specification, Estimation and Software , 2017, PharmacoEconomics.

[13]  M. Söderberg,et al.  Cervical amputation versus vaginal hysterectomy: a population-based register study , 2016, International Urogynecology Journal.

[14]  Lisa A Prosser,et al.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Discrete-Choice Experiments: A Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2016, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[15]  E. Lukacz,et al.  Quality of Life and Sexual Function 2 Years After Vaginal Surgery for Prolapse , 2016, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  H. Goldman,et al.  Uterine Conservation During Prolapse Repair: 9-Year Experience at a Single Institution , 2016, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

[17]  K. Kluivers,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 , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  B. Ottesen,et al.  Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery among Danish women hysterectomized for benign conditions: age at hysterectomy, age at subsequent POP operation, and risk of POP after hysterectomy , 2015, International Urogynecology Journal.

[19]  V. Sung,et al.  Patient preferences for uterine preservation and hysterectomy in women with pelvic organ prolapse. , 2013, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  J. Jelovsek,et al.  Attitudes Toward Hysterectomy in Women Undergoing Evaluation for Uterovaginal Prolapse , 2013, Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery.

[21]  K. Kluivers,et al.  Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse and uterine descent in the Netherlands , 2013, International Urogynecology Journal.

[22]  Kuan-Hui Huang,et al.  Changing trends of surgical approaches for uterine prolapse: an 11-year population-based nationwide descriptive study , 2012, International Urogynecology Journal.

[23]  Andrew Lloyd,et al.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[24]  Ranee Thakar,et al.  Conservative versus surgical management of prolapse: what dictates patient choice? , 2009, International Urogynecology Journal.

[25]  S. S. Schraffordt Koops,et al.  The effectiveness of the sacrospinous hysteropexy for the primary treatment of uterovaginal prolapse , 2007, International Urogynecology Journal.

[26]  O. Ozyuncu,et al.  The Manchester operation for uterine prolapse , 2006, International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics.

[27]  J. Bhaumik,et al.  Sacrospinous cervicocolpopexy with uterine conservation for uterovaginal prolapse in elderly women: an evolving concept. , 2003, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[28]  G. Bracco,et al.  True incidence of vaginal vault prolapse. Thirteen years of experience. , 1999, The Journal of reproductive medicine.