Nadine C Kassis1, Jennifer J Hamner2, Michelle M Takase-Sanchez3, Waseem Khoder3, Douglass S Hale3, Michael H Heit3. 1. Toledo Clinic Urogynecology, 3425 Executive Parkway, Suite 108, Toledo, OH, 43606, USA. nkassis@toledoclinic.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Urogynecology Associates, Indiana University Health/Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine whether the anatomic threshold for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) diagnosis and surgical success remains valid when the patient sees what we see on exam. METHODS:Two hundred participants were assigned, by computer-generated block randomization, to see one of four videos. Each video contained the same six clips representative of various degrees of anterior vaginal wall support. Participants were asked questions immediately after each clip. They were asked: "In your opinion, does this patient have a bulge or something falling out that she can see or feel in the vaginal area?" Similarly, they were asked to give their opinion on surgical outcome on a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The proportion of participants who identified the presence of a vaginal bulge increased substantially at the level of early stage 2 prolapse (1 cm above the hymen), with 67 % answering yes to the question regarding bulge. The proportion of participants who felt that surgical outcome was less desirable also increased substantially at early stage 2 prolapse (1 cm above the hymen), with 52 % describing that outcome as "not at all" or "somewhat" successful. CONCLUSION:Early stage 2 POP (1 cm above the hymen) is the anatomic threshold at which women identify both a vaginal bulge and a less desirable surgical outcome when they see what we see on examination.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to determine whether the anatomic threshold for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) diagnosis and surgical success remains valid when the patient sees what we see on exam. METHODS: Two hundred participants were assigned, by computer-generated block randomization, to see one of four videos. Each video contained the same six clips representative of various degrees of anterior vaginal wall support. Participants were asked questions immediately after each clip. They were asked: "In your opinion, does this patient have a bulge or something falling out that she can see or feel in the vaginal area?" Similarly, they were asked to give their opinion on surgical outcome on a 4-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The proportion of participants who identified the presence of a vaginal bulge increased substantially at the level of early stage 2 prolapse (1 cm above the hymen), with 67 % answering yes to the question regarding bulge. The proportion of participants who felt that surgical outcome was less desirable also increased substantially at early stage 2 prolapse (1 cm above the hymen), with 52 % describing that outcome as "not at all" or "somewhat" successful. CONCLUSION: Early stage 2 POP (1 cm above the hymen) is the anatomic threshold at which women identify both a vaginal bulge and a less desirable surgical outcome when they see what we see on examination.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jasmine S Tan; Emily S Lukacz; Shawn A Menefee; Curt R Powell; Charles W Nager Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2004-10-23
Authors: A M Weber; P Abrams; L Brubaker; G Cundiff; G Davis; R R Dmochowski; J Fischer; T Hull; I Nygaard; A C Weidner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2001
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Linda Brubaker; Ingrid Nygaard; Thomas L Wheeler; Joeseph Schaffer; Zhen Chen; Cathie Spino Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Iva Urbankova; Klara Grohregin; Jiri Hanacek; Michal Krcmar; Jaroslav Feyereisl; Jan Deprest; Ladislav Krofta Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-07-20 Impact factor: 2.894