AIMS: To determine the rate of progression or regression of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in subjects with symptomatic POP who decline intervention (pessary or surgery) and elect observation. METHODS: Sixty-four patients choosing observation as primary management of symptomatic POP were followed with sequential pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) exams. A change in the leading edge value of ±≥2 cm was considered significant. POP-Q exam results, choice of therapy and symptom severity at last visit were recorded. RESULTS: The leading vaginal edge POP-Q exam value at initial exam ranged from -1.5 to 7 cm. Distribution of patients by POP-Q stages on initial exam was: stage I: 1%, stage II: 31%, stage III: 31%, and stage IV: 1.78% (50/64) of patients demonstrated no change in leading edge value from first to last visit on POP-Q exams. Nineteen percent (12/64) demonstrated progression (≥2 cm increase in leading edge); 3% (2/64) demonstrated regression (≥2 cm decrease in leading edge). Median follow-up was 16 months (range 6-91 months). On multivariate analysis, no variable, including length of follow-up, was associated with change in leading edge value (P = 0.09, data not shown). At their last recorded visit, 63% (40/64) of subjects continued observation, 38% (24/64) desired a pessary trial or surgical correction. Those desiring intervention had no greater worsening of prolapse on exam at last follow-up compared with subjects who continued observation. CONCLUSION: The natural history of pelvic organ prolapse is most often one of very minimal change in subjects who decline intervention (pessary or surgery) and choose observation.
AIMS: To determine the rate of progression or regression of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in subjects with symptomatic POP who decline intervention (pessary or surgery) and elect observation. METHODS: Sixty-four patients choosing observation as primary management of symptomatic POP were followed with sequential pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) exams. A change in the leading edge value of ±≥2 cm was considered significant. POP-Q exam results, choice of therapy and symptom severity at last visit were recorded. RESULTS: The leading vaginal edge POP-Q exam value at initial exam ranged from -1.5 to 7 cm. Distribution of patients by POP-Q stages on initial exam was: stage I: 1%, stage II: 31%, stage III: 31%, and stage IV: 1.78% (50/64) of patients demonstrated no change in leading edge value from first to last visit on POP-Q exams. Nineteen percent (12/64) demonstrated progression (≥2 cm increase in leading edge); 3% (2/64) demonstrated regression (≥2 cm decrease in leading edge). Median follow-up was 16 months (range 6-91 months). On multivariate analysis, no variable, including length of follow-up, was associated with change in leading edge value (P = 0.09, data not shown). At their last recorded visit, 63% (40/64) of subjects continued observation, 38% (24/64) desired a pessary trial or surgical correction. Those desiring intervention had no greater worsening of prolapse on exam at last follow-up compared with subjects who continued observation. CONCLUSION: The natural history of pelvic organ prolapse is most often one of very minimal change in subjects who decline intervention (pessary or surgery) and choose observation.
Authors: Javier Pizarro-Berdichevsky; Ali Borazjani; Alejandro Pattillo; Marco Arellano; Jianbo Li; Howard B Goldman Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Peggy Norton; Linda Brubaker; Charles W Nager; Gary E Lemack; Halina M Zyczynski; Larry Sirls; Leslie Rickey; Anne Stoddard; R Edward Varner Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Stephanie A Sullivan; Emily R W Davidson; C Emi Bretschneider; Abigail L Liberty; Elizabeth J Geller Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Cara L Grimes; Ethan M Balk; Catrina C Crisp; Danielle D Antosh; Miles Murphy; Gabriela E Halder; Peter C Jeppson; Emily E Weber LeBrun; Sonali Raman; Shunaha Kim-Fine; Cheryl Iglesia; Alexis A Dieter; Ladin Yurteri-Kaplan; Gaelen Adam; Kate V Meriwether Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Hongmei Zhu; Di Zhang; Lei Gao; Huixin Liu; Yonghui Di; Bing Xie; Wei Jiao; Xiuli Sun Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-04 Impact factor: 4.614