International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 18, Issue 7, pp 787–798 | Cite as

Variability of current symptoms in women with pelvic organ prolapse

  • Vivian W. Sung
  • Melissa A. Clark
  • Eric R. Sokol
  • Charles R. Rardin
  • Deborah L. Myers
Original Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

To describe the variability of current (day-to-day) symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and to compare women’s overall (comprehensive) and current ratings of prolapse symptoms. This was a prospective observational study of 45 women with symptomatic POP followed-up for 3 months between November 2004 and June 2005. Women had a total of three visits during the study period. We measured current symptoms using daily symptom diaries completed for a total of 4 weeks during the study period. The diaries included 100-mm visual analogue scales anchored at 0 (no symptoms) and 100 (extremely severe symptoms) and patients completed these at three different times each day. At each study visit, patients were examined and completed a 10-item questionnaire, which included questions adapted from the PFDI. This questionnaire compared overall and current symptoms at each study visit. Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Current symptoms of vaginal bulging varied on a day-to-day basis. Current symptoms varied depending on the time of day with women reporting more severe symptoms in the evenings (P < .01). Women reported experiencing their most severe symptoms at only 13.7% of all study visits. On average, women reported less severe ratings of current symptoms at the time of each visit compared to overall recall ratings (P < .05). Women seeking care for symptomatic POP can have dynamic symptoms and are often not evaluated at the time of their most severe symptoms. This should be considered by clinicians evaluating women for symptoms of POP.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Current symptoms Urogynecologic conditions 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Subak LL, Waetjen LE, van den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS (2001) Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol 98:646–651PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swift S (2005) Pelvic organ prolapse: is it time to define it? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:425–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenhalgh J (2005) An assessment of the feasibility and utility of the MS symptom and impact diary (MSSID). Qual Life Res 14:1363–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Redelmeier DA, Kahneman D (1996) Patients’ memories of painful medical treatments: real-time and retrospective evaluations of two minimally invasive procedures. Pain 66:3–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burrows LJ, Meyn LA, Walters MD, Weber AM (2004) Pelvic symptoms in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 104:982–988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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; discussion 1337–1338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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 189:372–377; discussion 377–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bradley CS, Nygaard IE (2005) Vaginal wall descensus and pelvic floor symptoms in older women. Obstet Gynecol 106:759–766PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Handa VL, Garrett E, Hendrix S, Gold E, Robbins J (2004) Progression and remission of pelvic organ prolapse: a longitudinal study of menopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 190:27–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bland DR, Earle BB, Vitolins MZ, Burke G (1999) Use of the pelvic organ prolapse staging system of the International Continence Society, American Urogynecologic Society, and Society of Gynecologic Surgeons in perimenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:1324–1327; discussion 1327–1328PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A et al (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:795–806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tan JS, Lukacz ES, Menefee SA, Powell CR, Nager CW, San Diego Pelvic Floor Consortium (2005) Predictive value of prolapse symptoms: a large database study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:203–209; discussion 209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jobe JB, Mingay DJ (1989) Cognitive research improves questionnaires. Am J Public Health 79:1053–1055PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fienberg SE, Loftus EF, Tanur JM (1985) Cognitive aspects of health survey methodology: an overview. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc 63:547–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Willis G (1994) Cognitive interviewing and questionnaire design: a training manual. Working Paper Series No. 7, National Center for Health Statistics, Cognitive Methods Staff, Hyattsville, MDGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC (2005) Short forms of two condition-specific quality-of-life questionnaires for women with pelvic floor disorders (PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7). Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:103–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 185:1388–1395PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, McClish DK, Fantl JA (1995) Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Continence program for women research group. Neurourol Urodyn 14:131–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    FitzGerald MP, Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L (2001) Responsiveness of quality of life measurements to change after reconstructive pelvic surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:20–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greenhalgh J, Ford H, Long AF, Hurst K (2004) The MS symptom and impact diary (MSSID): psychometric evaluation of a new instrument to measure the day to day impact of multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 75:577–582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Maunsell E, Allard P, Dorval M, Labbe J (2000) A brief pain diary for ambulatory patients with advanced cancer: acceptability and validity. Cancer 88:2387–2397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cain KC, Headstrom P, Jarrett ME et al (2006) Abdominal pain impacts quality of life in women with irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 101:124–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eich E, Reeves JL, Jaeger B, Graff-Radford SB (1985) Memory for pain: relation between past and present pain intensity. Pain 23:375–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Peters ML, Sorbi MJ, Kruise DA, Kerssens JJ, Verhaak PF, Bensing JM (2000) Electronic diary assessment of pain, disability and psychological adaptation in patients differing in duration of pain. Pain 84:181–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith WB, Safer MA (1993) Effects of present pain level on recall of chronic pain and medication use. Pain 55:355–361PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    FitzGerald MP (2005) Relationship between stage of pelvic organ prolapse and symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction. J Pelvic Med Surg 11:62CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Urogynecology Journal 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vivian W. Sung
    • 1
    • 4
  • Melissa A. Clark
    • 2
  • Eric R. Sokol
    • 3
  • Charles R. Rardin
    • 1
  • Deborah L. Myers
    • 1
  1. 1.The Division of Urogynecology and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyBrown Medical SchoolProvidenceUSA
  2. 2.Division of Gerontology and Health Care Research, Department of Community HealthBrown UniversityProvidenceUSA
  3. 3.Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyStanford University School of MedicineStanford, Santa Clara CountyUSA
  4. 4.Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryWomen and Infants’ Hospital/Brown Medical SchoolProvidenceUSA

Personalised recommendations