Kelly de Jong1, Matthieu Y van der Vlist2, Daniëlla M J Oom2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Albert Schweitzerplaats 25, 3318 AT, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. D.M.J.Oom@asz.nl. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Albert Schweitzerplaats 25, 3318 AT, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Women seeking treatment for pelvic floor disorders (PFD) may have a high prevalence of frailty, which could potentially impact the risks of treatment. The present study was aimed to assess the prevalence of frailty in patients with PFD and additionally to compare post-treatment complications between frail and non-frail patients. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted in a single secondary referral centre for PFD. Women with PFD and aged ≥ 65 years were eligible for inclusion. Frailty was classified using a validated screening tool, the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). The primary outcome was to determine the prevalence of frailty in elderly women with symptoms of pelvic floor disorders. Secondary outcomes were clinical outcomes after treatment between frail and non-frail patients. RESULTS: A total of 263 women were included. The prevalence of frailty was 54.4% (143 women, 95% CI 48.1-60.5) in the studied group of patients. Frail patients had more comorbidities and used more medication compared to non-frail patients. Non-frail patients were more often surgically treated than frail patients. No differences were found in the incidence of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows a high prevalence of frailty in elderly women with symptoms of PFD. Further research is required to investigate whether these frail patients face an increased risk of complications and poor clinical outcomes after treatment for PFD.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Women seeking treatment for pelvic floor disorders (PFD) may have a high prevalence of frailty, which could potentially impact the risks of treatment. The present study was aimed to assess the prevalence of frailty in patients with PFD and additionally to compare post-treatment complications between frail and non-frail patients. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted in a single secondary referral centre for PFD. Women with PFD and aged ≥ 65 years were eligible for inclusion. Frailty was classified using a validated screening tool, the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI). The primary outcome was to determine the prevalence of frailty in elderly women with symptoms of pelvic floor disorders. Secondary outcomes were clinical outcomes after treatment between frail and non-frail patients. RESULTS: A total of 263 women were included. The prevalence of frailty was 54.4% (143 women, 95% CI 48.1-60.5) in the studied group of patients. Frail patients had more comorbidities and used more medication compared to non-frail patients. Non-frail patients were more often surgically treated than frail patients. No differences were found in the incidence of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows a high prevalence of frailty in elderly women with symptoms of PFD. Further research is required to investigate whether these frail patients face an increased risk of complications and poor clinical outcomes after treatment for PFD.
Entities:
Keywords:
Frailty; Pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD); Pelvic organ prolapse (POP); Urinary incontinence (UI); Women
Authors: Thomas N Robinson; Jeffrey I Wallace; Daniel S Wu; Arek Wiktor; Lauren F Pointer; Shirley M Pfister; Terra J Sharp; Mary J Buckley; Marc Moss Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Elisabeth A Erekson; Terri R Fried; Deanna K Martin; Thomas J Rutherford; Kris Strohbehn; Julie P W Bynum Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Thomas N Robinson; Christopher D Raeburn; Zung V Tran; Erik M Angles; Lisa A Brenner; Marc Moss Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: W Gibson; A Athanasopoulos; H Goldman; H Madersbacher; D Newman; J Spinks; J J Wyndaele; A Wagg Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 2.503