Re: Obstetrics and gynaecology for potential trainees: Is there a lack of experience?

G. Rozen,W. Rozen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828X.2006.00641.x
2006-10-01
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Abstract:© 2006 The Authors 465 Journal compilation © 2006 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; 46: 463–466 operation and the patient reported the restoration of urinary continence, then it was regarded as objective cure positive; if the incontinence frequency had declined but still exist after the operation, then it was regarded as partial recovery; and if no change in the incontinence complaint after the operation, then it was regarded as failure. Moreover, the patients were evaluated with a postoperative cough stress pad test six weeks after the operation in order to obtain objective data. The procedure was performed under spinal anaesthesia and the mean operating time was 5 min (± 1 min). Mean hospital stay was 24 h. All of the patients were discharged the next day after the intervention without any complication. The mean follow-up period was three months. Fourteen patients were completely dry. The mean weight of pad test in this group was 52.8 g (range 12–94 g) and 0.2 g (0–0.05 g) preoperative and postoperative, respectively. One patient was classified as a failure, although she reported a considerable decrease in her urine leakage during physical activities. Her pad test was 15.2 g postoperatively (preoperative pad test value was 69 g). No bladder/urethral injury or significant bleeding was experienced during the procedure. I have not noticed any anchor displacement and tape erosion. Rechberger et al. also reports no complication and no tape erosions. The TFS in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence is very efficient (93% success), very easy to perform and the most safe sling operation in the urogynaecology field among the known ones. There is no risk for major vessel injury. All happens under the direct control of the operating surgeon. Professor Petros was invited by the Turkish Obstetrics and Gynecology Association to Antalya, an annual meeting attended on this occasion by 2000 delegates. He presented several lectures on the integral theory, dynamic anatomy, and the TFS operation. He has been invited back next year to teach the TFS operations to the Turkish urogynaecologists. I was present when Professor Petros discussed with a well-known German professor a solution to total pelvic floor prolapse (muscles and organs), a hitherto insoluble problem. The professor agreed that using the TFS to create neoligament arcus tendineus fascia pelvis tissue could work, and he will arrange to address the problem in this way on return to Germany. I was quite fascinated with this discussion. Although I have only used the TFS for midurethral sling repair, it is my opinion that the TFS is the next generation instrument for pelvic floor repair. Furthermore, if used properly, I have reason to believe that the TFS will substantially replace the usage of large mesh. I therefore read Associate Professor Dietz’s letter with considerable regret. He does not appear to have viewed the TFS operations. I am certain that if he had done this, he would surely have agreed with the general assessment of the Antalya 2006 surgeons, that this is a major step forward for pelvic floor surgery.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?