Jeannine M Miranne1, Tania M Marek, Mihriye Mete, Cheryl B Iglesia. 1. Section of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center/Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC; and the Department of Biostatistics & Bioinformatics, MedStar Health Research Institute, Hyattsville, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of auditory vaginal air passage among women with and without pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in a population with pelvic floor disorders. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included women with urinary incontinence and POP who sought consultation at a single center from January 2012 to August 2013. Women with rectovaginal fistula, prior surgery for POP or incontinence, and current pregnancy were excluded. Participants completed a nonvalidated questionnaire about auditory vaginal air passage, also known as vaginal wind. The subset who had pelvic reconstructive surgery completed the same questionnaire 6 months postoperatively. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and preoperative and postoperative POP quantification data were collected. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two women were approached for participation, of whom 110 (83%) completed baseline study questionnaires. Of these 110, 59 had POP and 51 had normal pelvic support. The mean age was 55±12 years. Sixty-nine percent (76/110, 95% confidence interval [CI] 60-78%) experienced vaginal wind an average of 2.1±8.7 times weekly. There was no difference in the prevalence of vaginal wind between women with and without POP. Women with vaginal wind were younger than those without vaginal wind (mean age 52±12 years compared with 62±11 years, P<.001). The majority with vaginal wind experienced symptoms during intercourse (65/75 [87%], 95% CI 77-93%) and were at least somewhat bothered by it (49/76 [64%], 95% CI 53-75%), but only 22% (17/76, 95% CI 14-33%) reported a negative effect on quality of life. CONCLUSION: Vaginal wind is common among women with pelvic floor disorders but is not associated with POP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of auditory vaginal air passage among women with and without pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in a population with pelvic floor disorders. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included women with urinary incontinence and POP who sought consultation at a single center from January 2012 to August 2013. Women with rectovaginal fistula, prior surgery for POP or incontinence, and current pregnancy were excluded. Participants completed a nonvalidated questionnaire about auditory vaginal air passage, also known as vaginal wind. The subset who had pelvic reconstructive surgery completed the same questionnaire 6 months postoperatively. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics and preoperative and postoperative POP quantification data were collected. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two women were approached for participation, of whom 110 (83%) completed baseline study questionnaires. Of these 110, 59 had POP and 51 had normal pelvic support. The mean age was 55±12 years. Sixty-nine percent (76/110, 95% confidence interval [CI] 60-78%) experienced vaginal wind an average of 2.1±8.7 times weekly. There was no difference in the prevalence of vaginal wind between women with and without POP. Women with vaginal wind were younger than those without vaginal wind (mean age 52±12 years compared with 62±11 years, P<.001). The majority with vaginal wind experienced symptoms during intercourse (65/75 [87%], 95% CI 77-93%) and were at least somewhat bothered by it (49/76 [64%], 95% CI 53-75%), but only 22% (17/76, 95% CI 14-33%) reported a negative effect on quality of life. CONCLUSION: Vaginal wind is common among women with pelvic floor disorders but is not associated with POP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Yona Tadir; Adrian Gaspar; Ahinoam Lev-Sagie; Macrene Alexiades; Red Alinsod; Alex Bader; Alberto Calligaro; Jorge A Elias; Marco Gambaciani; Jorge E Gaviria; Cheryl B Iglesia; Ksenija Selih-Martinec; Patricia L Mwesigwa; Urska B Ogrinc; Stefano Salvatore; Paolo Scollo; Nicola Zerbinati; John Stuart Nelson Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2017-02-21 Impact factor: 4.025