OBJECTIVE: : To determine the current use of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) by members of the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) and the International Continence Society (ICS). METHODS: : Surgically active members of AUGS and ICS completed a Web-based questionnaire about their use of the POP-Q and included queries regarding respondent's clinical training, surgical experience, and practice setting. Users of POP-Q described their POP-Q use including patient's position, tools used to measure or assist with exposure, use of strain, and bladder volume. Strengths and weaknesses of the POP-Q system were also assessed. RESULTS: : The 308 respondents had a median of 8 years (range, 0-35 years) of independent performance of POP surgery. Most were from the United States (70%), in a shared practice (64%), with at least 2 years of fellowship training (61%), and had trainees participating in patient care (81%). Of the respondents, 76% reported using the POP-Q; however, the technique of POP-Q varied. Of the 24% not using the POP-Q, two-thirds reported past POP-Q use. For these individuals, prolapse description was done using Baden-Walker (57%), descriptive words (38%), or other grades (7%). More than 50% of nonusers reported that the POP-Q is "too time-consuming" or that their "colleagues do not use it." CONCLUSIONS: : Although most surveyed members of AUGS and ICS are using the POP-Q, we detected variability in the day-to-day practice of POP-Q use. To further advance the communication benefits of the POP-Q, a revision that provides evidence-based guidance may be a worthwhile refinement.
OBJECTIVE: : To determine the current use of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) by members of the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) and the International Continence Society (ICS). METHODS: : Surgically active members of AUGS and ICS completed a Web-based questionnaire about their use of the POP-Q and included queries regarding respondent's clinical training, surgical experience, and practice setting. Users of POP-Q described their POP-Q use including patient's position, tools used to measure or assist with exposure, use of strain, and bladder volume. Strengths and weaknesses of the POP-Q system were also assessed. RESULTS: : The 308 respondents had a median of 8 years (range, 0-35 years) of independent performance of POP surgery. Most were from the United States (70%), in a shared practice (64%), with at least 2 years of fellowship training (61%), and had trainees participating in patient care (81%). Of the respondents, 76% reported using the POP-Q; however, the technique of POP-Q varied. Of the 24% not using the POP-Q, two-thirds reported past POP-Q use. For these individuals, prolapse description was done using Baden-Walker (57%), descriptive words (38%), or other grades (7%). More than 50% of nonusers reported that the POP-Q is "too time-consuming" or that their "colleagues do not use it." CONCLUSIONS: : Although most surveyed members of AUGS and ICS are using the POP-Q, we detected variability in the day-to-day practice of POP-Q use. To further advance the communication benefits of the POP-Q, a revision that provides evidence-based guidance may be a worthwhile refinement.
Authors: R M Freeman; K Pantazis; A Thomson; J Frappell; L Bombieri; P Moran; M Slack; P Scott; M Waterfield Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Anique T M Grob; Judith Olde Heuvel; Jurgen J Futterer; Diana Massop; Angelique L Veenstra van Nieuwenhoven; Frank F J Simonis; Carl H van der Vaart Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-01-17 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Lisan M Morsinkhof; Martine K Schulten; John O L DeLancey; Frank F J Simonis; Anique T M Grob Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 1.932