Abstract It is not uncommon to be challenged with the di-lemma of deciding the best mode of delivery in a patient with a history of previous pelvic floor surgery. We hypothesized that the trendwould be a predilection towards cesarean section delivery in the context of a previous pelvic floor surgery, es-pecially amongst Urogynaecologists. A nation-wide survey was sent through the Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Canada to all physician members to assess the practice patterns regarding the preferred mode of delivery after pelvic floor surgery. A hundred and three members replied. Forty-seven percent would recommend a cesarean section (CS) when pregnant after a previous midurethral sling (MUS), 27.2 % would allow vaginal delivery, 10.7 % would not be
affected in their decision by the MUS, 9.7 % would strongly advise against pregnancy and 4.9 % would suggest a cesarean section with a sterilization procedure. With a history of previ-ous pelvic organ prolapse surgery (POP), 54.4 % would sug gestaCSwhenpregnant,21.4%wouldstronglyadvise against pregnancy and only 15.5 % would allow the patient to deliver vaginally. Urogynaecologists are significantly more
likely to strongly advise a patient with a previous MUS against pregnancy, compared to their peers practicing general obstetrics and gynaecology (OBGYN) (p= 0.04) or maternal
fetal medicine (MFM) (p= 0.05). Larger studies and cleaguidelines advising physicians to the optimum mode of deliv-ery following a history of previous pelvic floor surgery are
strongly needed