Literature DB >> 15228998

Effects of a full bladder and patient positioning on pelvic organ prolapse assessment.

W Andre Silva1, Steven Kleeman, Jeffrey Segal, Rachel Pauls, Scott E Woods, Mickey M Karram.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of bladder filling and patient position on the degree of pelvic organ prolapse (of the maximally prolapsed segment).
METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse were evaluated between February 2003 and August 2003. Patients were examined in the supine lithotomy and standing position at maximal bladder capacity and then in the supine lithotomy and standing position with an empty bladder. The International Continence Society's Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system was used.
RESULTS: The mean descent of prolapse beyond the hymen was 0.39 cm in the full/supine setting, 1.3 cm, full/standing, 1.9 cm, empty/supine, and 2.7 cm, empty/standing. All mean paired differences in the six examination pairs (empty/standing compared with empty/supine, full/standing compared with full/supine, full/standing compared with empty/standing, full/supine compared with empty/supine, full/standing compared with empty/supine, and full/supine compared with empty/standing) were statistically significantly different. The largest mean paired difference was noted in the full/supine compared with empty/standing pair (-2.3, 95% confidence interval -2.8 to -1.8, P <.001). Age and parity were not associated with differences in measurements taken in the different examination conditions. Using a linear regression model to control for body mass index, maximal bladder capacity, and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system stage, it was found that the values were still statistically significant. Full/supine compared with empty/standing pairs were significantly more likely to be upstaged by 1 stage (P <.001), or by 2 stages (P =.049), but not by 3 stages (P =.061).
CONCLUSION: Unless a patient is examined in the standing position with an empty bladder, the full extent of the prolapse may not be appreciated.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15228998     DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000131619.97936.e2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  10 in total

1.  "Eyeball" POP-Q examination: shortcut or valid assessment tool?

Authors:  Deborah R Karp; Thais V Peterson; Marjorie Jean-Michel; Roger Lefevre; G Willy Davila; Vivian C Aguilar
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-05-04       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Does pre-operative traction on the cervix approximate intra-operative uterine prolapse? A randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Fay L Chao; Anna Rosamilia; Peter L Dwyer; Alex Polyakov; Lore Schierlitz; Gerard Agnew
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  Prolapse assessment supine and standing: do we need different cutoffs for "significant prolapse"?

Authors:  Nuria-Laia Rodríguez-Mias; Nishamini Subramaniam; Talia Friedman; Ka Lai Shek; Hans Peter Dietz
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 2.894

4.  Does traction on the cervix under anaesthesia tell us when to perform a concomitant hysterectomy? A 2-year follow-up of a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Chendrimada Madhu; Richard Foon; Wael Agur; Phillip Smith
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Digital assessment and quantification of pelvic organ prolapse (DPOP-Q): a randomised cross-over diagnostic agreement trial.

Authors:  Ganesh Thiagamoorthy; Martino Zacchè; Linda Cardozo; Madhu Naidu; Ilias Giarenis; Richard Flint; Sushma Srikrishna; Dudley Robinson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-09-30       Impact factor: 2.894

6.  Relevance of open magnetic resonance imaging position (sitting and standing) to quantify pelvic organ prolapse in women.

Authors:  Marwa Abdulaziz; Alex Kavanagh; Lynn Stothers; Andrew J Macnab
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 1.862

7.  Relationship of degree of uterine prolapse between pelvic examination in lithotomy position with cervical traction and pelvic examination in standing position.

Authors:  Pichai Leerasiri; Parit Wachasiddhisilpa; Pattaya Hengrasmee; Chutimon Asumpinwong
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Inter-observer reliability of digital vaginal examination using a four-grade scale in different patient positions.

Authors:  G Alessandro Digesu; Vik Khullar; Linda Cardozo; Dudley Robinson
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-05-06

9.  Validation of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system in left lateral position.

Authors:  G Alessandro Digesu; Stavros Athanasiou; Linda Cardozo; Simon Hill; Vik Khullar
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2009-04-22

10.  Current use of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system in clinical practice among Korean obstetrician-gynecologists.

Authors:  Soo Rim Kim; Dong Hoon Suh; Myung Jae Jeon
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2021-05-18       Impact factor: 2.809

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.