Location and motion of vaginal pessaries in situ in women with successful and unsuccessful pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to compare the location and motion of pessaries between women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) with a successful (fitting) and unsuccessful (non-fitting) pessary treatment on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI). METHODS: A cross-sectional exploratory study of 15 women who underwent a mid-sagittal dMRI of the pelvic floor at rest, during contraction and during Valsalva with three different types of pessaries. The coordinates of the pessaries cross section, inferior pubic point (IPP) and sacrococcygeal junction (SCJ) were obtained and the location (position, orientation) and the motion (translation and rotation) were calculated. Differences between the groups and between the pessaries within the groups were compared. RESULTS: Nine women with a fitting pessary and 6 women with a non-fitting pessary were selected. In the non-fitting group, the pessaries were positioned more caudally and rotated more in clockwise direction and descended more, but not significantly, during Valsalva compared with the fitting group. The Falk pessary was positioned more anteriorly in the fitting group and more cranially in the non-fitting group compared with the ring and ring with support pessary. CONCLUSIONS: A non-fitting pessary was positioned more caudally at rest; on Valsalva, it rotated more clockwise and moved more caudally, suggesting that the dynamic characteristics of the pessary might play an important role in its effectiveness. Findings of this study serve as a basis for the development of new pessary designs.

Does three-dimensional anatomy improve student understanding?

We aim to provide an overview of the various digital three-dimensional visualizations used for learning anatomy and to assess whether these improve medical students' understanding of anatomy compared to traditional learning methods. Furthermore, we evaluate the attitudes of the users of three-dimensional visualizations. We included articles that compared advanced newer three-dimensional anatomy visualization methods (i.e., virtual reality, augmented reality, and computer-based three-dimensional visualizations) to traditional methods that have been used for a long time (i.e., cadaver and textbooks) with regard to users' understanding of anatomy. Of the 1,148 articles identified, 21 articles reported data on the effectiveness of using three-dimensional visualization methods compared to two-dimensional methods. Twelve articles found that three-dimensional visualization is a significantly more effective learning method compared to traditional methods, whereas nine articles did not find that three-dimensional visualization was a significantly more effective method. In general, based on these articles, medical students prefer to use three-dimensional visualizations to learn anatomy. In most of the articles, using three-dimensional visualization was shown to be a more effective method to gain anatomical knowledge compared to traditional methods. Besides that, students are motivated and interested in using these new visualization methods for learning anatomical structures. Clin. Anat. 32:25-33, 2019. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

What do we need to know about anatomy in gynaecology: A Delphi consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: Determination of the anatomical structures that should be taught to ensure safe and competent practice among general gynaecologists. STUDY DESIGN: A two-round Delphi survey, face-to-face meeting in focus groups and an individual interview. Participants were medical doctors and trainees from gynaecology, surgery, urology and radiology from academic, non-academic teaching and non-academic, non-teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Relevant structures were collected from gynaecology surgery atlas based on most common gynaecological surgeries and diseases. These structures were supplemented and critically viewed in focus groups followed by a Delphi survey. In the Delphi survey gynaecologist and trainee's gynaecology from all over the Netherlands scored the items on a Likert scale between 1 (not relevant) and 5 (highly relevant). Consensus was defined when ≥ 70 % of the panellist scored the item as relevant or very relevant and the average rating was ≥ 4. Main outcome was clinically relevant anatomical structures. RESULTS: Consensus on 86 clinically relevant anatomical structures divided by nine categories. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a core list of anatomical structures that are relevant to the safe and competent practice of general gynaecologists and that can be used to guide gynaecology postgraduate education. This is the first step in a much wider and complex process of becoming a competent gynaecologist.