Skip Navigation LinksHome > March/April 2010 - Volume 16 - Issue 2 > Oral Presentation 8: Quantification Of Vaginal Support: Are...
Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery:
doi: 10.1097/01.spv.0000370767.31571.bb
SGS Abstracts

Oral Presentation 8: Quantification Of Vaginal Support: Are Continous Scores Better Than Pop-q Stage?

Brubaker, L.1; the PFDN2

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

1OG, Loyola, Maywood, IL; 2for the, Pelvic Floor Disorders Network, Bethesda, MD

DISCLOSURE OF RELEVANT FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS: Linda Brubaker:Allergan:Research Funding:Investigator; Pfizer:Research Funding:Investigator;Pfizer:Honorarium:Research Consultant

Back to Top | Article Outline

OBJECTIVES:

Surgeons are aware that the arbitrarily adopted stages of the POP-Q system do not correlate well with symptoms or differentiate clinically important subgroups. POP-Q stage is an ordinal (rather than continuous) variable, which has statistical limitations as a surgical outcome measure. We defined three continuous summary scores, based on POP-Q measures, to describe support loss and assessed their correlation with prolapse symptoms.

Back to Top | Article Outline

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

We used baseline data from 1141 subjects in 3 randomized trials of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network (CARE 322, OPUS 380, ATLAS 439) to test the utility of three support loss scores: SL (Support Loss) = (TVL + C) + (Aa + 3) + (Ap + 3) + (Ba + 3) + (Bp + 3); SL3 = (TVL + C) + (Ap + 3) + (Bp + 3); and SLmax = location of single most distal point. Zero is the theoretical lower limit of SL and SL3 and −3 is the limit for SLmax, and represent perfect support. Higher values of SL measures represent greater support loss. Each support loss measure was correlated with POP-Q stage, total scores for responses to the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI) and the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire (POPIQ), and responses to questions 4 (“usually have a sensation of bulging or protrusion”) and 5 (“usually have a bulge or something falling out seen/felt”) of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI). Two-year CARE data were used to assess utility of these support loss measures for describing anatomical outcomes.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS:

All POP-Q stages were represented within the 1141 subjects: Stage 0 (4%), 1 (18%), 2 (29%), 3 (41%), 4 (8%). Symptomatic subjects were moderately (11%) or quite often (32%) bothered. Subjects had a wide range of support loss scores (mean [range]): SL [18.1 (0 to 60)], SL3 [10.7 (0 to 41)] and SLmax [1.5 (−3 to 12)]. Support loss scores were comparable to POP-Q stage with respect to correlation with baseline prolapse symptoms (Table 1).

The anatomic improvement in the CARE population is displayed using continuous support loss measures and POP-Q stage (Table 2). However, anatomic change, as measured by support loss or POP-Q stage, was not well correlated with prolapse symptom improvement.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSION:

Summary measures of support loss that more closely correlate with prolapse symptoms are desirable. These new support loss measures have a statistical advantage as continuous variables and may improve the transparency of surgical outcome reporting, augmenting the current POP-Q staging.

Keywords:

Prolapse; Anatomy; Outcomes; Pelvic

© 2010 by Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Login

Article Tools

Share

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.