S E Swift1, M Herring. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston 29425, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a significant difference in the degree of pelvic organ prolapse assigned during examination in the standing position compared with the dorsal lithotomy position with the patient performing maximal Valsalva maneuver. METHODS: Fifty-one women with symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse were examined in both the dorsal lithotomy position, while performing maximal Valsalva, and in the standing position at the same visit by one of two examiners. Nine site-specific measures and summary stages were recorded, as outlined by the International Continence Society's classification system for pelvic organ prolapse. The data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The mean age was 52 +/- 15 years. Excellent correlation was noted between all six points representing the vaginal prolapse. The R values for point Aa were 0.97, Ba 0.96, C 0.98, Ap 0.97, Bp 0.96, and D 0.97. The total vaginal length, perineal body, and genital hiatus measurements were performed in the dorsal lithotomy position with the patient at rest and were not repeated. The stages were identical in 48 of 51 patients. The average stage in the dorsal lithotomy position was 2.3 and in the standing position, 2.3. There was no statistically significant difference between the stage or any of the measured points in the dorsal lithotomy and standing examinations. CONCLUSION: The degree of pelvic organ prolapse can be assessed adequately in the dorsal lithotomy position with the patient performing maximal Valsalva. It is not necessary to routinely repeat the examination in the standing position.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a significant difference in the degree of pelvic organ prolapse assigned during examination in the standing position compared with the dorsal lithotomy position with the patient performing maximal Valsalva maneuver. METHODS: Fifty-one women with symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse were examined in both the dorsal lithotomy position, while performing maximal Valsalva, and in the standing position at the same visit by one of two examiners. Nine site-specific measures and summary stages were recorded, as outlined by the International Continence Society's classification system for pelvic organ prolapse. The data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The mean age was 52 +/- 15 years. Excellent correlation was noted between all six points representing the vaginal prolapse. The R values for point Aa were 0.97, Ba 0.96, C 0.98, Ap 0.97, Bp 0.96, and D 0.97. The total vaginal length, perineal body, and genital hiatus measurements were performed in the dorsal lithotomy position with the patient at rest and were not repeated. The stages were identical in 48 of 51 patients. The average stage in the dorsal lithotomy position was 2.3 and in the standing position, 2.3. There was no statistically significant difference between the stage or any of the measured points in the dorsal lithotomy and standing examinations. CONCLUSION: The degree of pelvic organ prolapse can be assessed adequately in the dorsal lithotomy position with the patient performing maximal Valsalva. It is not necessary to routinely repeat the examination in the standing position.
Authors: Deborah R Karp; Thais V Peterson; Marjorie Jean-Michel; Roger Lefevre; G Willy Davila; Vivian C Aguilar Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-05-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Fay L Chao; Anna Rosamilia; Peter L Dwyer; Alex Polyakov; Lore Schierlitz; Gerard Agnew Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Nuria-Laia Rodríguez-Mias; Nishamini Subramaniam; Talia Friedman; Ka Lai Shek; Hans Peter Dietz Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 2.894