Suppr超能文献

直肠前突:可及性偏倚的受害者?一项针对肛肠和妇科外科医生的比利时调查结果。

Rectocele: victim of availability bias? Results of a Belgian survey of colorectal and gynecological surgeons.

机构信息

Department of Abdominal, Pediatric and Reconstructive Surgery, Antwerp University Hospital, Drie Eikenstraat 566, 2650, Edegem, Belgium.

Antwerp ReSURG, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, 2610, Antwerp, Belgium.

出版信息

Int Urogynecol J. 2022 Dec;33(12):3505-3517. doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05118-4. Epub 2022 Feb 24.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Women with a symptomatic rectocele may undergo different trajectories depending on the specialty consulted. This survey aims to evaluate potential differences between colorectal surgeons and gynecologists concerning the management of a rectocele.

METHODS

A web-based survey was sent to abdominal surgeons (CS group) and gynecologists (G group) asking about their perceived definition, diagnostic workup, multidisciplinary discussion (MDT) and surgical treatment of rectoceles. The answers of both groups were analyzed with the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test at p < 0.050.

RESULTS

A rectocele was defined as a prolapse of the posterior vaginal wall by 78% of the G and 41% of the CS group. All gynecologists and 49% of the CS group evaluated a rectocele clinically in dorsal decubitus, with 91% of gynecologists using a speculum and 65% using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) scoring system, compared to < 1/3 of colorectal surgeons. A digital rectal examination was performed by 90% of the CS group and 57% of the G group. A transvaginal ultrasound was only used by the G group, while anal manometry was opted for by the CS group (65%) and minimally by the G group (14%). In the G group, a posterior repair was the preferred surgical technique (78%), whereas 63% of the CS group preferred a rectopexy. Multidisciplinary discussions (MDT) were mostly organized ad hoc.

CONCLUSIONS

An availability bias is seen in different aspects of rectocele evaluation and treatment. Colorectal surgeons and gynecologists are acting based on their training and experience. Motivation for pelvic floor MDT starts with creating awareness of the availability bias.

摘要

引言与假说

有症状的直肠前突患者可能因就诊科室不同而呈现不同的病程进展。本研究旨在评估结直肠外科医生和妇科医生在直肠前突治疗方面的潜在差异。

方法

通过网络向腹部外科医生(CS 组)和妇科医生(G 组)发送了一项调查,询问他们对直肠前突的定义、诊断检查、多学科讨论(MDT)和手术治疗的看法。使用卡方检验或 Fisher 精确检验比较两组的答案,p<0.050 时差异有统计学意义。

结果

78%的妇科医生和 41%的 CS 组将直肠前突定义为阴道后壁脱垂。所有的妇科医生和 49%的 CS 组会在背卧位进行直肠前突的临床评估,其中 91%的妇科医生会使用窥器,65%会使用盆腔器官脱垂量化(POP-Q)评分系统,而只有不到 1/3的 CS 组会这样做。90%的 CS 组和 57%的 G 组会进行直肠指诊。G 组仅使用经阴道超声,而 CS 组(65%)和 G 组(14%)倾向于使用肛门测压法。在 G 组中,后修补术是首选的手术技术(78%),而 CS 组(63%)更喜欢直肠固定术。多学科讨论(MDT)主要是临时组织的。

结论

在直肠前突的评估和治疗的不同方面存在可用性偏差。结直肠外科医生和妇科医生的行为是基于他们的培训和经验。为了开展盆底 MDT,首先需要意识到可用性偏差的存在。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验