Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse
- PMID: 24142054
- DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9
Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse
Abstract
Introduction and hypothesis: The aim was to determine the incidence and prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and describe how outcomes are reported.
Methods: Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews, level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 (case reports). The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. A grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. A grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs. A grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or "majority evidence" from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. A grade D "no recommendation possible" would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi .
Results: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when defined by symptoms has a prevalence of 3-6% and up to 50% when based upon vaginal examination. Surgery for prolapse is performed twice as commonly as continence surgery and prevalence varies widely from 6 to 18%. The incidence of POP surgery ranges from 1.5 to 1.8 per 1,000 women years and peaks in women aged 60-69. When reporting outcomes of the surgical management of prolapse, authors should include a variety of standardised anatomical and functional outcomes. Anatomical outcomes reported should include all POP-Q points and staging, utilising a traditional definition of success with the hymen as the threshold for success. Assessment should be prospective and assessors blinded as to the surgical intervention performed if possible and without any conflict of interest related to the assessment undertaken (grade C). Subjective success postoperatively should be defined as the absence of a vaginal bulge (grade C). Functional outcomes are best reported using valid, reliable and responsive symptom questionnaires and condition-specific HRQOL instruments (grade C). Sexual function is best reported utilising validated condition-specific HRQOL that assess sexual function or validated sexual function questionnaires such as the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ) or the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). The sexual activity status of all study participants should be reported pre- and postoperatively under the following categories: sexually active without pain, sexually active with pain or not sexually active (grade C). Prolapse surgery should be defined as primary surgery, and repeat surgery sub-classified as primary surgery different site, repeat surgery, complications related to surgery and surgery for non-prolapse-related conditions (grade C).
Conclusion: Significant variation exists in the prevalence and incidence of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and how the outcomes are reported. Much of the variation may be improved by standardisation of definitions and outcomes of reporting on pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
Similar articles
-
Economics of pelvic organ prolapse surgery.Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Nov;24(11):1873-6. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2178-8. Int Urogynecol J. 2013. PMID: 24142062 Review.
-
Complications of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and methods of prevention.Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Nov;24(11):1859-72. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2177-9. Int Urogynecol J. 2013. PMID: 24142061 Review.
-
Pelvic organ prolapse and sexual function.Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Nov;24(11):1853-7. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2176-x. Int Urogynecol J. 2013. PMID: 24142060 Review.
-
Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and bladder function.Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Nov;24(11):1843-52. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2175-y. Int Urogynecol J. 2013. PMID: 24142059 Review.
-
Apical prolapse.Int Urogynecol J. 2013 Nov;24(11):1815-33. doi: 10.1007/s00192-013-2172-1. Int Urogynecol J. 2013. PMID: 24142057 Review.
Cited by
-
Validation of the Lithuanian version of the Prolapse Quality-of-Life questionnaire.Int Urogynecol J. 2024 May 27. doi: 10.1007/s00192-024-05822-3. Online ahead of print. Int Urogynecol J. 2024. PMID: 38801555
-
Prevalence of colorectal symptoms and anal incontinence in patients with pelvic organ prolapse attended at an outpatient urogynecology service.Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024 Mar 15;46:e-rbgo10. doi: 10.61622/rbgo/2024AO10. eCollection 2024. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2024. PMID: 38765524 Free PMC article.
-
Bibliometric Analyses of the Research Trends of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse.Int Urogynecol J. 2024 Jun;35(6):1281-1290. doi: 10.1007/s00192-024-05812-5. Epub 2024 May 17. Int Urogynecol J. 2024. PMID: 38758456
-
Pelvic floor disorders and impact on sexual function: a cross-sectional study among non-sexually active and sexually active women.Sex Med. 2024 May 9;12(2):qfae024. doi: 10.1093/sexmed/qfae024. eCollection 2024 Apr. Sex Med. 2024. PMID: 38725639 Free PMC article.
-
Pelvic floor dysfunction prevention in female-to-male sexual reassignment: a future challenge for tailoring cares.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024 May 2. doi: 10.1007/s00404-024-07529-8. Online ahead of print. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024. PMID: 38695972 No abstract available.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical