Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2018; 78(10): 112-113
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1671085
Poster
Donnerstag, 01.11.2018
Operative Gynäkologie, Urogynäkologie I
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

The preferred mode of delivery of medical professionals and non-professional mothers-to-be and the interest in prevention measures for pelvic floor protection. A prospective, online-based survey

J Bihler
1  Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Department für Frauengesundheit, Tübingen, Deutschland
,
R Tunn
2  Deutsches Beckenbodenzentrum, St. Hedwig-Krankenhaus, Urogynäkologie, Berlin, Deutschland
,
C Reisenauer
1  Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Department für Frauengesundheit, Tübingen, Deutschland
,
G Kolenic
3  University of Michigan, Pelvic Floor Research Group, Ann Arbor, Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
,
J Pauluschke-Fröhlich
1  Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Department für Frauengesundheit, Tübingen, Deutschland
,
P Wagner
1  Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Department für Frauengesundheit, Tübingen, Deutschland
,
H Abele
1  Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Department für Frauengesundheit, Tübingen, Deutschland
,
K Rall
1  Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Department für Frauengesundheit, Tübingen, Deutschland
,
G Naumann
4  Helios Klinikum Erfurt, Frauenheilkunde und Geburtshilfe, Erfurt, Deutschland
,
S Wallwiener
5  Universitäts-Frauenklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland
,
M Wallwiener
5  Universitäts-Frauenklinik Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Deutschland
,
SY Brucker
1  Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Department für Frauengesundheit, Tübingen, Deutschland
,
M Hübner
6  Lindenhofgruppe, Frauenzentrum Bern, Bern, Schweiz
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
20 September 2018 (online)

 

Objective:

To evaluate the personal preference of mode of delivery and to analyze differences in both medical professionals (MP) and non-professional mothers-to-be (NP). Additionally, interest in participating in not yet established prevention measures was evaluated.

Methods:

Four professional cohorts (participants of the National Urogynecology Congress, employees of two major University Hospitals, members of the National Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics) were invited online. The two non-professional groups included pregnant women who sought for medical care either at our University Hospital or at their general OB/GYN-practitioners.

Results:

2,324 MP and 269 NP participated. Vaginal delivery (VD) was the preferred mode of delivery in both groups (MP 90.6% vs. NP 88.8%; p = 0.429). MP are more likely to opt for CS due to concerns regarding pelvic floor disorders (MP 56% vs. NP 9% p < 0.001). Likewise, parity and a prior experienced C-section (pCS) had a significant impact on the decision towards vaginal delivery (parity MP OR 7.52 95%CI 4.6 – 12.3, NP OR 9.3 95%CI 1.9 – 44.2; (pCS) MP OR 0.121 95%CI 0.07 – 0.19, NP OR 0.053 95%CI 0.01 – 0.25). The willingness to participate in a risk stratifications system is high in MP 70.5% vs. NP 55.0; p = 0.000, a pessary therapy to support postpartum recovery is interesting for MP 43.5% vs. NP 36.4%; p = 0.047.

Conclusions:

Both MP and NP prefer vaginal birth. However, MP were significantly more often concerned about pelvic floor disorders. Although the NP felt confident in knowing the advantages and disadvantages of either mode of delivery, the awareness of pelvic floor disorders is different.