Literature DB >> 16225577

Prediction of findings at defecography in patients with genital prolapse.

Jan-Paul W R Roovers1, Johanna G van der Bom, C Huub van der Vaart, A Peter M Heintz.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Defecography may be useful in pre-operative assessment of patients with genital prolapse. Defecography is an invasive and embarrassing procedure for patients and little effort has been made to optimalise selection criteria for defecography. This study investigated whether discrimination of high and low probability of abnormal defecography is possible based on the quantified findings from patient history, pelvic examination and a validated questionnaire.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
SETTING: Three teaching hospitals in The Netherlands. POPULATION: Eighty-two patients undergoing surgical correction of uterine prolapse Stages 2-4.
METHODS: A history and pelvic examination were obtained from all patients. A validated questionnaire was used to assess the presence of defecation and micturition symptoms. Using multivariate logistic regression analyses with receiver operating characteristic curves, a diagnostic model to predict the presence of an abnormal defecography was systematically constructed and validated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Presence of abnormal finding at defecography.
RESULTS: The most important predictors for abnormal defecography were prolapse of the posterior vaginal wall, history of abdominal or pelvic surgery and the presence of constipation. With these variables, a prediction rule could be constructed which predicted the prevalence of an abnormal defecography (area under curve = 0.73; 95% CI 0.61-0.83).
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that a diagnostic model based on findings obtained from a non-invasive workup can accurately predict the presence of an abnormal defecography. Such a model provides the possibility to tailor the request for defecography to the individual patient.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16225577     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00734.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  10 in total

1.  Clinical-decision taking in primary pelvic organ prolapse; the effects of diagnostic tests on treatment selection in comparison with a consensus meeting.

Authors:  Annette G Groenendijk; Erwin Birnie; Sjoerd de Blok; Albert H Adriaanse; Willem M Ankum; Jan-Paul W Roovers; Gouke J Bonsel
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2009-03-10

2.  Correlation between posterior vaginal wall defects assessed by clinical examination and by defecography.

Authors:  Annette G Groenendijk; Victor P van der Hulst; Erwin Birnie; Gouke J Bonsel
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-05-09

3.  Treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a randomized multicenter trial comparing sacrospinous fixation with vaginal hysterectomy (SAVE U trial).

Authors:  Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Jelle Stekelenburg; Akeel H H Alhafidh; Robert A Hakvoort; Mark E Vierhout; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2011-02-15       Impact factor: 2.809

4.  Laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy versus vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy as treatment for uterine descent: comparison of long-term outcomes.

Authors:  Anique M J van Oudheusden; Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Hilde Hoskam; Joggem Veen; Marlies Y Bongers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with suspension of the uterosacral ligaments in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.

Authors:  Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Jelle Stekelenburg; Joanna IntHout; Mark E Vierhout; Kirsten B Kluivers; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2015-07-23

6.  Hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing laparoscopic sacrohysteropexy with vaginal sacrospinous hysteropexy (LAVA-trial, study protocol).

Authors:  Mèlanie N van IJsselmuiden; Anne-Lotte W M Coolen; Renée J Detollenaere; Jan den Boon; Marlies Bongers; Geerte van de Pol; Astrid Vollebregt; Celine M Radder; Jan Deprest; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2014-09-17       Impact factor: 2.809

7.  Laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy versus abdominal sacrocolpopexy for vaginal vault prolapse: long-term follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Anique M J van Oudheusden; Josephine Eissing; Ivon M Terink; Maarten D H Vink; Sander M J van Kuijk; Marlies Y Bongers; Anne-Lotte W M Coolen
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2022-09-16       Impact factor: 1.932

8.  When to perform urodynamics before mid-urethral sling surgery for female stress urinary incontinence?

Authors:  R Marijn Houwert; Jan Paul W R Roovers; Pieter L Venema; Hein W Bruinse; Marcel G W Dijkgraaf; Harry A M Vervest
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.894

9.  Functional outcome after sacrospinous hysteropexy for uterine descensus.

Authors:  Viviane Dietz; Marieke Huisman; Joyce M de Jong; Peter M Heintz; Carl H van der Vaart
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2008-06

10.  Sacrospinous hysteropexy versus vaginal hysterectomy with uterosacral ligament suspension in women with uterine prolapse stage 2 or higher: observational follow-up of a multicentre randomised trial.

Authors:  Sascha F M Schulten; Renée J Detollenaere; Jelle Stekelenburg; Joanna IntHout; Kirsten B Kluivers; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-09-10
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.