Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 1, pp 47–51 | Cite as

Defining normal apical vaginal support: a relook at the POSST study

  • Radhika PatnamEmail author
  • Autumn Edenfield
  • Steven Swift
Original Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The purpose of this study is to reanalyze data from the original 2005 Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST) data set to define normal values for apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) points C and D and total vaginal length (TVL) in an asymptomatic population of women.

Methods

In this retrospective observational data-set review, patient were >18 years presenting for annual gynecologic exams to six centers in the United States. Data included demographics, questions about prolapse symptoms, and POP-Q points. Means and standard deviations were determined for each POP-Q point in the total population.

Results

The data set comprised 1011 women; 59 were excluded because they met criteria for having POP or were missing data. This left 948 for study. Mean age of our study population was 42 ± 14 years, and 45.6% were white, 25.1% black, and 25.2% Hispanic. One hundred fifty-six had a prior hysterectomy. Mean values with standard deviations (SD) for POP-Q values are as following: point C (vaginal cuff) −7.3 ± 1.5 cm, point C (cervix) −5.9 ± 1.5, point D −8.7 cm ± 1.5 cm, TVL (no hysterectomy) 9.8 cm ± 1.3 cm, and TVL (hysterectomy) 8.9 cm ± 1.5 cm.

Conclusions

This data suggests normal values for POP-Q apical points in a population of patient with annual gynecological exams.

Keywords

Apical support Pelvic organ prolapse support 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend recognition to the Original POSST study site principal Investigators for their work in collecting and establishing this data set; Patrick Woodman, Deidre Bland, Joseph Schaffer, Michael Valley, Margie Kahn.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Swift SE, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse: defining the disease. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2010;16(4):201–3.  https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e3181f0bf1d.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An international Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meister MR, Sutcliffe S, Lowder JL. Definitions of apical vaginal support loss: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.078.
  5. 5.
    Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):795–806.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swift SE, Tate SB, Nicholas J. Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(2):372–7. discussion 377-379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):655–84.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3003-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trowbridge ER, Fultz NH, Patel DA, DeLancey JO, Fenner DE. Distribution of pelvic organ support measures in a population-based sample of middle-aged, community-dwelling African American and white women in southeastern Michigan. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):548 e541–6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barber MD, Kuchibhatla MN, Pieper CF, Bump RC. Psychometric evaluation of 2 different comprehensive condition-specific quality of life instruments for women with pelvic floor disorders. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1388–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lukacz ES, Lawrence JM, Buckwalter JG, Burchette RJ, Nager CW, Luber KM. Epidemiology of prolapse and incontinence questionnaire: validation of a new epidemiologic survey. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005;16(4):272–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Urogynecology and Reconstructive Pelvic SurgeryUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations