Comparative Study to Evaluate Intersystem Association between Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Scoring System
Vaidehi A Duddalwar, Anuja Bhalerao
Intersystem association, Pelvic organ prolapse quantification system, Simplified pelvic organ prolapse scoring system
Citation Information :
Duddalwar VA, Bhalerao A. Comparative Study to Evaluate Intersystem Association between Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System and Simplified Pelvic Organ Prolapse Scoring System. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2021; 13 (5):325-329.
Aim: To study the intersystem association between pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system and simplified pelvic organ prolapse (S-POP) scoring system.
Materials and methods: This hospital-based prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted in 65 women of reproductive, perimenopausal, and postmenopausal age-group with pelvic organ prolapse having urinary or bowel complaints and admitted to gynecology ward of Lata Mangeshkar Hospital, Nagpur, during the period from October 1, 2016, to October 31, 2018. Women willing to participate in the study were assessed and enrolled in the study after fulfilling inclusion and exclusion criteria. Women were assessed by both the assessment systems—POP-Q system and S-POP scoring system preoperatively for evaluating intersystem association between them.
Results: There was FAIR association between POP-Q and S-POP of stage II and stage III for anterior wall prolapse. The association was GOOD of stage II and FAIR of stage III for central compartment and VERY GOOD of stage II and FAIR of stage III for overall prolapse.
Conclusion: Though POP-Q system appears complex; it is simple and has a learning curve. With respect to pelvic floor repair and significant anatomical and functional improvement postoperatively, POP-Q system should be the preferred method of assessment of pelvic organ prolapse.
Clinical significance: We hope to find a suitable, reproducible, standardized, and user-friendly method for quantification of pelvic organ prolapse to relate the result of the test to the outcome of treatment.
Dhama V, Chaudhary R, Shakun S, et al. Evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse by standardized POP Q system for vaginal hysterectomy. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017;6(6):2584–2588. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20172356.
Yuvaraj TP, Mahale AR. Assessment of prolapse by Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POPQ) System. Indian J Basic Appl Med Res 2014;3(3):324–330. P ISSN: 2250-284X, E ISSN: 2250–2858.
Bump RC, Norton PA. Epidemiology and natural history of pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1998;25(4):723–746. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-8545(05)70039-5.
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 85: Pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2007;110(3): 717–729. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000263925.97887.72. PMID: 17766624.
Olsen AL, Smith VG, Bergstrom JO, et al. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89(4):501–506. DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6.
Introduction. In: Pandit SN, et al., editors. Pelvic organ prolapse 2005. 1st ed. p. 1–2. Publisher: The National Book Depot. ISBN: 8187540532.
Campeau L, Gorbachinsky I, Badlani GH, et al. Pelvic floor disorders: linking genetic risk factors to biochemical changes. BJU Int 2011;108(8):1240–1247. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10385.x.
Bortolini MA, Rizk DE. Genetics of pelvic organ prolapse: crossing the bridge between bench and bedside in urogynecologic research. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22(10):1211–1219. DOI: 10.1007/s00 192-011-1502-4.
Haim K, Ram E, Edward R, et al. How accurate is pre-operative evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse in women undergoing vaginal reconstruction surgery? PLoS One 2012;7(10):e47027. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047027.
Andre FH, James PT, Geoffrey WC, et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175(6):1467–1471. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70091-1.
Digesu GA, Athanasiou S, Cardozo L, et al. Validation of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP–Q) system in left lateral position. Int Urogynecological J 2009;20(8):979–983. DOI: 10.1007/s 00192-009-0884-z.
Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD. Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 1996;7(3): 121–124. DOI: 10.1007/BF01894199.
Raizada N, Mittal P, Suri J, et al. Comparative study to evaluate the intersystem association and reliability between standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and simplified pelvic organ prolapse scoring system. J Obstet Gynecol India 2014;64(6):421–424. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-014-0537-0.
Dhama V, Singh S, Chaudhary R, et al. Association between the standardized pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP Q) and Shaw's system of classification for pelvic organ prolapse. Indian J Obstet Gynecol Res 2017;4(2):166–170. DOI: 10.18231/2394-2754.2017.0037.
Manonai J, Mouritsen L, Palma P, et al. The intersystem association between the simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (S-POP) and the standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POPQ) in describing pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22(3):347–352. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-010-1286-y.
Singh AG, Varsha Rani C, Vineeta G, et al. Evaluation of intersystem agreement between standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system and simplified pelvic organ prolapse scoring system. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2017;6(5):2031–2034. DOI: 10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20171971.
Narathorn S, Komkrit A, Steven S, et al. Assessment of prolapse using the S-POP by the first-year-OB&GYN resident trainees. Ramathibodi Med J 2018;41(2):16–23. DOI: 10.14456/rmj.2018.12.