Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 165–194 | Cite as

An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP)

  • Bernard T. HaylenEmail author
  • Christopher F. Maher
  • Matthew D. Barber
  • Sérgio Camargo
  • Vani Dandolu
  • Alex Digesu
  • Howard B. Goldman
  • Martin Huser
  • Alfredo L. Milani
  • Paul A. Moran
  • Gabriel. N. Schaer
  • Mariëlla I. J. Withagen
Special Contribution

Abstract

Introduction

The terminology for female pelvic floor prolapse (POP) should be defined and organized in a clinically-based consensus Report.

Methods

This Report combines the input of members of two International Organizations, the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) and the International Continence Society (ICS), assisted at intervals by external referees. Appropriate core clinical categories and a sub-classification were developed to give a coding to definitions. An extensive process of fourteen rounds of internal and external review was involved to exhaustively examine each definition, with decision-making by collective opinion (consensus).

Results

A Terminology Report for female POP, encompassing over 230 separate definitions, has been developed. It is clinically-based with the most common diagnoses defined. Clarity and user-friendliness have been key aims to make it interpretable by practitioners and trainees in all the different specialty groups involved in female pelvic floor dysfunction and POP. Female-specific imaging (ultrasound, radiology and MRI) and conservative and surgical managements are major additions and appropriate figures have been included to supplement and clarify the text. Emerging concepts and measurements, in use in the literature and offering further research potential, but requiring further validation, have been included as an appendix. Interval (5–10 year) review is anticipated to keep the document updated and as widely acceptable as possible.

Conclusion

A consensus-based Terminology Report for female POP has been produced to aid clinical practice and research.

Keywords

Pelvic organ prolapse Female Terminology report Standardization report 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The assistance of Prof Steven Swift is gratefully acknowledged for the Simplified POP-Q section and other helpful input. Prof John DeLancey also contributed helpful input to “Prolapse quantification” and the Appendix. We thank our invited external reviewers Prof Steven Swift, Prof Mark Vierhout, Prof Michele Meschia, Prof Doug Tincello and Prof Don Wilson for their constructive contributions. We also thank those who submitted constructive comments following IUGA and ICS website presentation of Version 12: Dr Kiran Ashok, Prof Phil Toozs-Hobson, Dr Kamil Svabik. Further helpful comments were received at an open forum at ICS Montreal from Beth Shelly, Julia Herbert, Kari Bo and Joe Lee. The talents of medical illustrator, Levent Efe were crucial to the development of this document levent@leventefe.com.au.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

BT Haylen: No disclosures.

CF Maher: No disclosures.

MD Barber: No disclosures.

SFM Camargo: No disclosures.

V Dandolu: Research grant–Allegan, Consultant-Pfizer; A Digesu: Honorarium for lectures or sponsorship to cover travel expenses at Meetings from: Astellas, Pfizer, Allergan, AMS, Medtronic, Uroplasty.

HB Goldman: Consultant – Allergan, Medtronic, Uroplasty; Speaker – Astellas, Allergan, Medtronic, Uroplasty.

M Huser: No disclosures.

AL Milani: No disclosures.

PA Moran: Speaker & consultant: Astellas and Ethicon Women’s Health and Urology. Consultant: Boston Scientific.

GN Schaer: Advisor (in Switzerland) for Astellas, Novartis, Pfizer.

MIJ Withagen: Research Grant 2010–Ethicon Women’s Health & Urology.

References

  1. 1.
    Haylen BT, Freeman RM, de Ridder D et al (2010) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)—International Continence Society (ICS) Joint report into the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 29:4–20, International Urogynecology J 2010;21:5–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Abrams P, Blaivas JG, Stanton SL et al (1988) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 114:5–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M et al (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function. Report from the standardisation subcommittee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 21:167–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K et al (1996) The standardization of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–11CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Swift SE et al (2011) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Terminology and Classification of complications related directly to the insertion of prostheses (meshes, implants, tapes) and grafts in female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22:3–15, Neurourology and Urodynamics 30(1):2–12Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haylen BT, Freeman RM, Lee J, et al (2012) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint terminology and classification of the complications related to native tissue female pelvic floor surgery. Int Urogynecol 23:515–26. Neurourol Urodyn 31:406–14Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, et al (2012) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for reporting outcomes of surgical procedures for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol 23:527–35. Neurourol Urodyn 31:415–26Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sultan A, Monga A, Haylen BT, et al (2015) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Anorectal Dysfunction in Women (In Committee Review)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bo K, Frawley H, Haylen BT, et al (2015) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) Joint report on the terminology for the conservative management of pelvic floor dysfunction. (In Committee Review)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogers R, Thakar R, Petri E, et al (2015) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint report on the terminology for the sexual health in women with pelvic floor dysfunction. (In Committee Review)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Riss P, Dwyer PL (2014) The POP-Q classification system: looking back and looking forward. Int Urogynecol J 25:439–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bump RC (2014) The POP-Q system: two decades of progress and debate. Int Urogynecol J 25:441–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Toozs-Hobson P, Swift S (2014) POP-Q stage 1 prolapse: is it time to alter our terminology? Int Urogynecol J 25:445–446CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harmanli O (2014) POP-Q 2. 0: its time has come. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25:447–449Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    (1995) Concise Oxford English Dictionary. 9th Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p1438.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    (2006) Stedman’s medical dictionary. 28th Edition. Lippincott William and Wilkins, Baltimore. p 1884Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rogers GR, Villarreal A, Kammerer-Doak D et al (2001) Sexual function in women with/without urinary incontinence and or pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 12:361–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang A, Mostwin J, Genadry R et al (1993) Patterns of prolapse demonstrated with dynamic fastscan MRI; reassessment of conventional concepts of pelvic floor weaknesses. Neurourol Urodyn 12:310–311Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Swift SE, Woodman P, O’Boyle A et al (2005) Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition and epidemiology of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol 192:795–806CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Swift SE, Tate SB, Nichols J (2003) Correlation of symptomatology with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:372–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I et al (2009) Pelvic floor disorders network. Obstet Gynecol 114:600–609CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dietz HP (2007) Quantification of major morphological abnormalities of the levator ani. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 29:329–334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Haylen BT (2006) The retroverted uterus: Ignored to date but core to prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 17:555–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Symmonds RE (1982) Relaxation of pelvic supports. In: Benson RC (ed) Current obstetrics and gynaecological diagnosis and treatment. Lange Medical Publications, Los Altos, pp 285–291 (chap 12)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Swift S, Morris S, McKinnie V et al (2006) Validation of a simplified technique for using the POPQ pelvic organ classification system. Int Urogynecol J 17:615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parekh M, Swift S, Lemos N et al (2011) Multicentre inter-examiner trial of the validation of simplified POPQ system. Int Urogynecol J 22:645–650CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haylen BT, Lee J, Logan V et al (2008) Immediate postvoid residuals in women with symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction: prevalences and associations. Obstet Gynecol 111:1305–1312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fantl JA, Smith PJ, Schneider V et al (1982) Fluid weight uroflowmetry in women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 145:1017–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Haylen BT, Ashby D, Sutherst JR et al (1989) Maximum and average urine flow rates in normal male and female populations - the Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol 64:30–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haylen BT, Parys BT, Ashby D et al (1990) Urine flow rates in male and female urodynamic patients compared with the Liverpool nomograms. Br J Urol 65:483–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schafer W, Abrams P, Liao L et al (2002) Good urodynamic practices: uroflowmetry, filling cystometry, and pressure-flow studies. Neurourol Urodyn 21:261–274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Groutz A, Blaivas JG, Chaikin DC (2000) Bladder outflow obstruction in women: definition and characteristics. Neurourol Urodyn 19:213–220CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Poston GJ, Joseph AE, Riddle PR (1983) The accuracy of ultrasound in the measurement of changes in bladder volume. Br J Urol 55:361–363CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Haylen BT, Frazer MI, Sutherst JR et al (1989) Transvaginal ultrasound in the assessment of bladder volumes in women. Br J Urol 63:152–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dietz HP, Velez D, Shek KL et al (2012) Determination of postvoid residuals by translabial ultrasound. Int Urogynecol J 23:1749–52CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pineda M, Shek K, Wong V et al (2013) Can hiatal ballooning be determined by two-dimensional translabial ultrasound? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 53:489–493. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12111, Epub 2013 Aug 2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bright E, Oelke M, Tubaro A et al (2010) Ultrasound estimated bladder weight and measurement of bladder wall thickness-useful noninvasive methods for assessing the lower urinary tract? J Urol 184:1847–1854. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2010.06.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Panayi DC, Khullar V, Digesu GA et al (2009) Is ultrasound estimation of bladder weight a useful tool in the assessment of patients with lower urinary tract symptoms? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:1445–1449. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0964-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Digesu GA, Calandrini N, Derpapas A et al (2012) Intraobserver and interobserver reliability of the three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of female urethral sphincter using a translabial technique. Int Urogynecol J 8:1063–1068. doi: 10.1007/s00192-012-1669-3, Epub 2012 Jan 21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rodrigo N, Wong V, Shek KL et al (2014) The use of 3-dimensional ultrasound of the pelvic floor to predict recurrence risk after pelvic reconstructive surgery. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 3:206–211. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12171, Epub 2014 Feb 18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Dietz HP, Shek C, De Leon J et al (2008) Ballooning of the levator hiatus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 6:676–680. doi: 10.1002/uog.5355 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Colaiacomo MC et al (2009) Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor: a pictorial review. Radiographics 29, e35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    DeLancey JO, Morgan DM, Fenner DE et al (2007) Comparison of levator ani muscle defects and function in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 109:295–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fielding JR (2002) Practical MRI, imaging of female pelvic floor weakness. RadioGraphics 22:295–304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Torricelli P, Pecchi A, Caruso-Lombardi A et al (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating functional disorders of female pelvic floor. Radiol Med 103:488–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rizk DE, Czechowski J, Ekelund L (2004) Dynamic assessment of pelvic floor and bony pelvis morphologic condition with the use of magnetic resonance imaging in a multi- ethnic, nulliparous, and healthy female population. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:83–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lamers BH, Broekman BM, Milani AL (2011) Pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and health-related quality of life; a review. Int Urogynecol J 6:637–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    de Boer TA, Milani AL, Kluivers KB et al (2009) The effectiveness of surgical correction of uterine prolapse: cervical amputation with uterosacral ligament plication (modified Manchester) versus vaginal hysterectomy with high uterosacral ligament plication. Int Urogynecol J 20:1313–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    DeLancey JO (1992) Anatomical aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:117–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Zemlyn S (1981) The length of the uterine cervix and its significance. J Clin Ultrasound 9:267–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Vu D, Haylen BT, Tse K et al (2010) Surgical anatomy of the uterosacral ligament. Int Urogynecol J 21:1123–1128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Haylen BT, Kerr S, Naidoo S et al (2015) Posterior vaginal compartment repairs: where are the main anatomical defects? Neurourol Urodyn 34:S130–S131, Int Urogynecol J doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2874-7
  53. 53.
    Haylen BT, Avery D, Chiu T et al (2014) Posterior repair quantification (PR-Q) using key anatomical indicators (KAI). Int Urogynecol J 25(12):1665–1772, Neurourol Urodyn 2014;33:900–1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Haylen BT, Younis M, Naidoo S et al (2015) Perineorrhaphy quantitative assessment. Int Urogynecol J 26:539–544CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Swenson CW, Simmen AM, Berger MB et al (2015) The long and short of it: anterior vaginal wall length before and after anterior repair. Int Urogynecol J 26:1035–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Wiley Periodicals Inc., and The International Urogynecological Association 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernard T. Haylen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christopher F. Maher
    • 2
  • Matthew D. Barber
    • 3
  • Sérgio Camargo
    • 4
  • Vani Dandolu
    • 5
  • Alex Digesu
    • 6
  • Howard B. Goldman
    • 3
  • Martin Huser
    • 7
  • Alfredo L. Milani
    • 8
  • Paul A. Moran
    • 9
  • Gabriel. N. Schaer
    • 10
  • Mariëlla I. J. Withagen
    • 11
  1. 1.University of New South WalesDarlinghurstAustralia
  2. 2.University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  4. 4.Hospital Presidente VargaPorto-Alegre-RSBrazil
  5. 5.University of Nevada, Las VegasLas VegasUSA
  6. 6.St Mary’s HospitalLondonUK
  7. 7.Brno University HospitalBrnoCzech Republic
  8. 8.Reinier de Graaf GasthuisDelftNetherlands
  9. 9.Worcestershire Royal HospitalWorcesterUK
  10. 10.KantonsspitalAarauSwitzerland
  11. 11.University Medical CentreUtrechtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations