Literature DB >> 22278714

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

Fay L Chao1, Anna Rosamilia, Peter L Dwyer, Alex Polyakov, Lore Schierlitz, Gerard Agnew.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study aims to compare pre-operative Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) point C with and without cervical traction to that obtained intra-operatively in women undergoing pelvic organ prolapse surgery and to assess acceptability of examination with cervical traction without anaesthesia.
METHODS: Eighty-one women were randomised to having pre-operative examination with or without cervical traction to measure point C. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores were recorded for each pre-operative examination. Comparisons were made between pre-operative and intra-operative findings.
RESULTS: The mean difference between pre-operative and intra-operative point C in the non-traction group was statistically higher than in the traction group (3.2 vs 1.6 cm, p = 0.0001). The level of agreement between pre-operative point C measurement with traction and intra-operative point C measurement was better than pre-operative point C measurement without traction and intra-operative point C measurement on Bland and Altman plots. Women having cervical traction reported significantly greater pain score on the VAS (3.4 vs. 1.2, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to routine pre-operative examination with Valsalva and cough manoeuvres only, pre-operative examination with cervical traction had better agreement with intra-operative point C findings. Although women reported greater pain score when examined with cervical traction, it was still a tolerable and acceptable examination without anaesthesia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22278714     DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1656-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urogynecol J        ISSN: 0937-3462            Impact factor:   2.894


  14 in total

1.  Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Fiona J Smith; C D'Arcy J Holman; Rachael E Moorin; Nicolas Tsokos
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Patient's acceptance of outpatient hysteroscopy.

Authors:  W C Lau; R Y Ho; M K Tsang; P M Yuen
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 2.031

3.  A comparison of preoperative and intraoperative evaluation of patients undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System.

Authors:  Mark E Vierhout; Jackie Stoutjesdijk; Johan Spruijt
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2005-07-29

4.  Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, and American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system.

Authors:  A F Hall; J P Theofrastous; G W Cundiff; R L Harris; L F Hamilton; S E Swift; R C Bump
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence.

Authors:  A L Olsen; V J Smith; J O Bergstrom; J C Colling; A L Clark
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  W H Kobak; K Rosenberger; M D Walters
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  1996

7.  Comparison of pelvic organ prolapse in the dorsal lithotomy compared with the standing position.

Authors:  S E Swift; M Herring
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  How accurate is symptomatic and clinical evaluation of prolapse prior to surgical repair?

Authors:  Abdalla Fayyad; Simon Hill; Vinita Gurung; Sanjeev Prashar; Anthony R B Smith
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2007-02-15

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

Authors:  W Andre Silva; Steven Kleeman; Jeffrey Segal; Rachel Pauls; Scott E Woods; Mickey M Karram
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  A comparison of preoperative and intraoperative evaluations for patients who undergo site-specific operation for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  David D Vineyard; Thomas J Kuehl; Kimberly W Coates; Bobby L Shull
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  8 in total

1.  To pull or not to pull, that is the question…how should we define prolapse?

Authors:  Phillip Smith; Steven Swift; John O L DeLancey
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2013-06-19       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  Does pre-operative traction on the cervix approximate intra-operative uterine prolapse? Comment.

Authors:  Wael Agur; Richard Foon; Ruben Trochez; Phillip Smith
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 2.894

3.  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

4.  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

5.  A novel technique to measure in vivo uterine suspensory ligament stiffness.

Authors:  Tovia Martirosian Smith; Jiajia Luo; Yvonne Hsu; James Ashton-Miller; John Oliver Delancey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-06-06       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Apical descent in the office and the operating room: the effect of prolapse size.

Authors:  Erin C Crosby; Kristen M Sharp; Adrian Gasperut; John O L Delancey; Daniel M Morgan
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.091

Review 7.  Mechanics of Uterosacral Ligaments: Current Knowledge, Existing Gaps, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Kandace Donaldson; Alyssa Huntington; Raffaella De Vita
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 3.934

Review 8.  Surgery for women with apical vaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Christopher Maher; Benjamin Feiner; Kaven Baessler; Corina Christmann-Schmid; Nir Haya; Julie Brown
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-10-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.