Journal of SAFOMS

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2019 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Study to Evaluate Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Scoring System by Assessing Anatomical and Functional Outcome in Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse after Surgery

Anuja Bhalerao, Vaidehi A Duddalwar

Keywords : Pelvic organ prolapse quantification system, Randomized controlled trial, Simplified pelvic organ prolapse scoring system

Citation Information : Bhalerao A, Duddalwar VA. Comparative Study to Evaluate Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Scoring System by Assessing Anatomical and Functional Outcome in Women with Pelvic Organ Prolapse after Surgery. J South Asian Feder Menopause Soc 2019; 7 (2):71-76.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10032-1180

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 18-07-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q) and simplified pelvic organ prolapse scoring system (S-POP) by assessing anatomical and functional outcome in women with pelvic organ prolapse after surgery and to propose a better method for preoperative assessment and planning for surgery. Materials and methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted in 65 women of reproductive, perimenopausal, and postmenopausal age group with symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse having urinary or bowel complaints admitted to gynaecology ward of Lata Mangeshkar Hospital, Nagpur, during the period from October 1, 2016 to October 31, 2018. Women willing to participate in the study were assessed and enrolled in the study after fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria. Women were assessed by both the assessment systems—POP-Q and S-POP—preoperatively; following which women were divided into two groups by block randomization to be evaluated further by POP-Q or S-POP separately. All women were then subjected to various surgeries, and their postoperative findings were noted. Subsequently, anatomical and functional improvement with variation in assessment methods was gauged. Comparison of POP-Q and S-POP was done. Results: 70.97% women assessed by POP-Q and 61.77% women assessed by S-POP had marked functional improvement. A total of 93.55% women belonging to POP-Q group and 82.35% women belonging to S-POP group had considerable anatomical improvement postoperatively. Conclusion: There was significant improvement anatomically and functionally in women with pelvic organ prolapse who were treated and evaluated by POP-Q. Clinical significance: We hope to find a suitable, standardized, and user-friendly method for quantification of pelvic organ prolapse to relate the result of the test to the outcome of treatment.


PDF Share
  1. McKay WJS. The History of Ancient Gynecology. London, UK: Bailliere, Tindall and Cox; 1901.
  2. Dhama V, Singh S, Chaudhary R, et al. Association between the standardized pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP Q) and Shaw's system of classification for pelvic organ prolapse. Indian J Obstet Gynecol Res 2017;4(2):166–170. DOI: 10.18231/2394-2754.2017.0037.
  3. Samuelsson EC, Arne Victor FT, Tibblin G, et al. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;80(2 Pt 1):299–305. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70203-6.
  4. Yuvraj TP, Mahale AR. Assessment of prolapse by pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP Q) system. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res 2014;3(3):324–330.
  5. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician and gynecologist. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(3):717–727.
  6. Olsen AL, Smith VG, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89(4):501–506. DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97) 00058-6.
  7. Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Pandit SN, et al. ed., 1st ed. Introduction. pp. 1–2.
  8. Campeau L, Gorbachinsky I, Badlani GH, et al. Pelvic floor disorders: linking genetic risk factors to biochemical changes. BJU Int 2011;108(8):1240–1247. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10385.x.
  9. Bortolini MA, Rizk DE. Genetics of pelvic organ prolapse: crossing the bridge between bench and bedside in urogynecologic research. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22(10):1211–1219. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1502-4.
  10. Auwad W, Freeman RM, Swift S. Is the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POPQ) being used? A survey of members of the International Continence Society (ICS) and the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS). Int Urogynecol J 2004;15(5):324–327. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-004-1175-3.
  11. Haim K, Ram E, Edward R, et al. How accurate is pre-operative evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse in women undergoing vaginal reconstruction surgery? PLoS One 2012;7(10):e47027. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047027.
  12. Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175(6):1467–1470. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70091-1.
  13. Weber AM, Abrams P, Brubakar L, et al. The standardization of terminology of researchers female pelvic disorders. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2001;12(3):178–186. DOI: 10.1007/pl00004033.
  14. Digesu GA, Athanasiou S, Cardozo L. Validation of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system in left lateral position. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009;20(8):979–983. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-009-0884-z.
  15. Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD. Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 1996;7(3):121–124. DOI: 10.1007/bf01894199.
  16. International Continence Society Committee on Standardization of Terminology. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Final Draft Proposal. ICS; 1994.
  17. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175(1):10–17. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0.
  18. Bubakar L, Norton P. Current clinical nomenclature for description of pelvic organ prolapse. J Pelvic Surg 1996;2(5):257–259.
  19. Raizada N, Mittal P, Suri J, et al. Comparative study to evaluate the intersystem association and reliability between standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and simplified pelvic organ prolapse scoring system. J Obstet Gynecol India 2014;64(6):421–424. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-014-0537-0.
  20. Singh AG, Varsha Rani C, Vineeta G, et al. Evaluation of intersystem agreement between standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and simplified pelvic organ prolapse scoring system. Int J Reprod Contracep Obstet Gynecol 2017;6(5):2031–2034. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20171971.
  21. Dhama D, Chaudhary R, Singh S, et al. Evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse by standardized POP Q system for vaginal hysterectomy. Int J Reprod Contracep Obstet Gynecol 2017;6(6):2584–2588. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20172356.
  22. Manonai J, Mouritsen L, Palma P, et al. The inter-system association between the simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (S-POP) and the standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POPQ) in describing pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22(3):347–352. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1286-y.
  23. Suwanvesh N, Aimjirakul K, Swift S, et al. Assessment of prolapse using the S-POP by the first-year-OB&GYN resident trainees. Ramathibodi Med J 2018;41(2):16–23. DOI: 10.14456/rmj.2018.12.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.