Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Relationship between the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) before and after anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of correlation between the Pelvic Organ Quantification system (POP-Q) measurements and symptom questionnaire scores before and after surgery. This was a part of a randomized controlled study comparing conventional colporrhaphy with mesh repair surgery.

Methods

The correlation between POP-Q measurements and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) scores was investigated in 164 women 55 years or older scheduled for primary anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery at baseline and the correlation between the change in point Ba and scores following surgery. Statistical analyses used McNemar’s and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Spearman’s rank-order correlation, and multiple linear regression.

Results

Surgery significantly improved POP-Q, PFIQ-7, and PFDI-20 scores, including subscales. We observed weak correlations between POP-Q and PFIQ-7, including subscales (r 0.173–0.324, p < 0.05), and PFDI-20, including the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI) subscale (r 0.180–0.211, p < 0.05). Regression analysis demonstrated a significant relationship between point Ba and PFIQ-7 (p = 0.001) and PFDI-20 (p = 0.04), respectively. Furthermore, we observed a significant relationship between the change in point Ba (following surgery) and change in scores; point Ba following surgery was significantly correlated with symptoms of bulging (r = 0.303, p < 0.01) and bladder-emptying problems (r = 0.213, p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The weak correlation between POP-Q and urogenital symptoms based on questionnaire scores suggests that neither scoring system is optimal.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Samuelsson EC, Victor A, Tibblin G, Svardsudd KF (1999) Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 years of age and possible related factors. Am J Obstet Gynecol 180:299–305

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Digesu GA, Khullar V, Cardozo L, Robinson D, Salvatore S (2005) P-QOL: a validated questionnaire to assess the symptoms and quality of life of women with urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 16:176–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baden WF, Walker TA, Lindsay JH (1968) The vaginal profile. Tex Med J 64:56–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC (2001) Psychometric evaluation of 2 comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185(S1):1388–1395

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Barber M, Walters M, Bump R (2005) Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). AJOG 193:103–113

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Barber M, Chen Z, Lukacz E, Markland A, Wai C, Brubaker L et al (2011) Further validation of the short form versions of the pelvic floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and pelvic floor impact questionnaire (PFIQ). Neurourol Urodyn 30:541–546

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Digesu GA, Chaliha C, Salvatore S, Hutchins A, Khullar V (2005) The relationship of vaginal prolapse severity to symptoms and quality of life. BJOG 112:971–976

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ali-Ross N, Smith A, Hosker G (2009) The effect of physical activity on pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG 116:824–828

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mouritsen L, Prien Larsen J (2003) Symtptoms, bother and POPQ in women referred with pelvic organ prolapse. IUJ 14:122–127

    Google Scholar 

  11. Barber M, Walters M, Cundiff G, PESSRI Trial Group (2006) Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. AJOG 194:1492–1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wetta LA, Gerten KA, Wheeler TL, Holley RL, Varner RE, Richter HE (2009) Synthetic graft use in vaginal prolapse surgery: objective and subjective outcomes. Int Urogynecol J 20:1307–1312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. El-Azab AS, Abd-Elsayed AA, Imam HMK (2009) Patient reported and anatomical outcomes after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Neurourol Urodyn 28:219–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fayyad A, North C, Reid F, Smith A (2011) Prospective study of anterior transobturator mesh kit (ProliftTM) for the management of recurrent anterior vagina wall prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 22:157–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Swift SE, Tate SB, Nicholas J (2003) Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: What is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:372–379

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rudnicki M, Laurikainen E, Pogosean R, Kinne I, Jakobsson U, Teleman P (2014) Anterior colporrhaphy compared with collagen-coated transvaginal mesh for anterior vaginal wall prolapse: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 121(1):102–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM et al (2010) An International Urogynaecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 21(1):5–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bradley CS, Nygaard IE (2005) Vaginal wall descensus and pelvic floor symptoms in older women. Obstet Gynecol 106:759–766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barber MD, Neubauer NL, Klein-Olarte V (2006) Can we screen for pelvic organ prolapse without a physical examination in epidemiologic studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 195:942–948

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ellerkmann RM, Cundiff GW, Melick CF, Nihira MA, Leffler K, Bent AE (2001) Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:1332–1337

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fayyad A, Redhead E, Awan N, Kyrgiou M, Prashar S, Hill S (2008) Symptomatic and quality of life outcomes after site-specific fascial reattachment for pelvic organ prolapse repair. Int Urogynecol J 19:191–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Digesu GA, Salvatore S, Chaliha C, Athanasiou S, Milani R, Khullar V (2007) Do overactive bladder symptoms improve after repair of anterior vaginal wall prolapse? Int Urogynecol J 18:1439–1443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Kluivers K, Hendriks J, Shek C, Dietz H (2008) Pelvic organ prolapse symptoms in relation to POPQ, ordinal stages and ultrasound prolapse assessment. Int Urogynecol J 19:1299–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Hamilton LF, Swift SE, Bump RC (1996) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, and American Urogynecologic pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1467–1471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Stark D, Dall P, Abdel-Fattah M, Hagen S (2010) Feasability, inter- and intrarater reliability of physiotherapists measuring prolapse using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Int Urogynecol J 21:651–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ulla Hviid (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Roskilde University Hospital, Denmark), Marianne Ottesen Weincke and Monica Topp (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Denmark), and Arne Urnes (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ahus University Hospital, Norway) for their support regarding recruitment of study participants and examinations during follow-ups.

Details of ethics approval

The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee in each country: identification codes Denmark ref. no. DK SJ-66 (approved by the local ethics committee of Region Sealand, 23.04 2008); Sweden ref. no. Dnr 45/2008 (approved by the regional ethics committee of Lund, 14.02.2008); Norway ref. no. 08/263 (ethics committee of Norway, approved 08.08.2008) and Finland ref. no. KA22.2.2008 (approved by the southwest ethics committee of Finland; 19.02.2008). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov:http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00774215. Registration number: Clinical Trials NCT00627549. Disclosure forms have been signed by each author.

Funding

The study was funded by the Region Zealand Health research fund.

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Skane University Hospital Lund, Lund University, 221 85, Lund, Sweden

    P. Teleman

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Turku University Central Hospital, Turku, Finland

    E. Laurikainen

  3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Akershus University Hospital, Lorenskog, Norway

    I. Kinne

  4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Lidköping Hospital, Lidköping, Sweden

    R. Pogosean

  5. Center for Primary Healthcare Research; Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    U. Jakobsson

  6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

    M. Rudnicki

Authors
  1. P. Teleman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Laurikainen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. I. Kinne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R. Pogosean
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. U. Jakobsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. M. Rudnicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. Teleman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Teleman, P., Laurikainen, E., Kinne, I. et al. Relationship between the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) before and after anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 26, 195–200 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2434-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2434-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation