Tag: Pelvic organ Porlapse

  • FIN-POP Study – Two-in-One Approach is Likley Unnecessary

    FIN-POP Study – Two-in-One Approach is Likley Unnecessary

    —

    by

    Wael Agur
    in

    The FIN-POP study challenges the necessity of performing simultaneous surgery for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) during pelvic organ prolapse (POP) procedures. With only 5.1% of women requiring additional surgery for persistent SUI after prolapse surgery, the findings suggest that many women may not need two procedures at the same time. The study, based on data…

  • Olsen Study 1997 – an example of hasty generalisation?

    Olsen Study 1997 – an example of hasty generalisation?

    —

    by

    Wael Agur
    in

    The 1997 Olsen study is often misinterpreted in urogynaecology, referencing a concerning 29.2% re-operation rate following natural tissue surgery for prolapse. However, significant shortcomings in the study, including a high-risk population with factors like obesity (35%) and chronic lung disease (21%), led to an overestimation of this risk. Many (uro)gynaecologists have hastily generalized these findings,…