Joseph T Kowalski1, Allen Mehr2, Evan Cohen3, Catherine S Bradley2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Dr. PFP OBGYN, Iowa City, IA, 52245, USA. joseph-kowalski@uiowa.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Dr. PFP OBGYN, Iowa City, IA, 52245, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The current literature on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) employs wildly varying definitions of surgical success. Understanding which definitions of success have been used and how these may impact reported outcomes is critical. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to identify and summarize these definitions and how they have changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search was performed for studies reporting POP surgical outcomes (1996 and later). Inclusion criteria were: original research, English, adult women with POP, nonobliterative surgical treatment, comparison group, reported prolapse-specific outcomes, and clear definition of treatment success. This definition was categorized according to presence of anatomic, subjective, retreatment, or other components and whether these components were evaluated individually or in a composite definition (in which all components must be present for success). RESULTS: One-hundred forty articles were included. The number of included studies increased over time (r = 0.90, p < 0.00001). Ninety-five studies (67.9%) reported an anatomic-only definition of success, 43 (30.7%) included a subjective component to their definition of success, and 23 (16.4%) reported a composite definition of success, including 11 (7.9%) containing anatomic, symptomatic, and retreatment components. The most common definition of anatomic success was Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage ≤ 1. The report of a significant difference between treatment groups (positive study) was most common in studies using an anatomic-only definition of success (p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: The number of comparative studies evaluating POP surgical outcomes has increased from 1996 to 2016. Most use definitions of success based solely on anatomic criteria despite increasing awareness of the importance of reporting subjective outcomes and retreatment rates.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The current literature on pelvic organ prolapse (POP) employs wildly varying definitions of surgical success. Understanding which definitions of success have been used and how these may impact reported outcomes is critical. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to identify and summarize these definitions and how they have changed over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search was performed for studies reporting POP surgical outcomes (1996 and later). Inclusion criteria were: original research, English, adult women with POP, nonobliterative surgical treatment, comparison group, reported prolapse-specific outcomes, and clear definition of treatment success. This definition was categorized according to presence of anatomic, subjective, retreatment, or other components and whether these components were evaluated individually or in a composite definition (in which all components must be present for success). RESULTS: One-hundred forty articles were included. The number of included studies increased over time (r = 0.90, p < 0.00001). Ninety-five studies (67.9%) reported an anatomic-only definition of success, 43 (30.7%) included a subjective component to their definition of success, and 23 (16.4%) reported a composite definition of success, including 11 (7.9%) containing anatomic, symptomatic, and retreatment components. The most common definition of anatomic success was Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stage ≤ 1. The report of a significant difference between treatment groups (positive study) was most common in studies using an anatomic-only definition of success (p = 0.037). CONCLUSION: The number of comparative studies evaluating POP surgical outcomes has increased from 1996 to 2016. Most use definitions of success based solely on anatomic criteria despite increasing awareness of the importance of reporting subjective outcomes and retreatment rates.
Authors: Philip Toozs-Hobson; Robert Freeman; Matthew Barber; Christopher Maher; Bernard Haylen; Stavros Athanasiou; Steven Swift; Kristene Whitmore; Gamal Ghoniem; Dirk de Ridder Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 2.894
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: Shawn A Menefee; Keisha Y Dyer; Emily S Lukacz; Amanda J Simsiman; Karl M Luber; John N Nguyen Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: J Eric Jelovsek; Marie G Gantz; Emily Lukacz; Amaanti Sridhar; Halina Zyczynski; Heidi S Harvie; Gena Dunivan; Joseph Schaffer; Vivian Sung; R Edward Varner; Donna Mazloomdoost; Matthew D Barber Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Sascha F M Schulten; Renée J Detollenaere; Jelle Stekelenburg; Joanna IntHout; Kirsten B Kluivers; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven Journal: BMJ Date: 2019-09-10
Authors: Pamela A Moalli; Shaniel T Bowen; Steven D Abramowitch; Mark E Lockhart; Michael Ham; Michael Hahn; Alison C Weidner; Holly E Richter; Charles R Rardin; Yuko M Komesu; Heidi S Harvie; Beri M Ridgeway; Donna Mazloomdoost; Amanda Shaffer; Marie G Gantz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 2.894