Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The S.A.C.S. (Satisfaction–Anatomy–Continence–Safety) score for evaluating pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a proposal for an outcome-based scoring system

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

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To date, there is no overall consensus on the definition of cure after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The aim of the study was to design and test the scoring system S.A.C.S. (Satisfaction–Anatomy–Continence–Safety) to assess and compare the outcomes of POP repair.

Methods

A total of 233 women underwent open sacrocolpopexy. The S.A.C.S. outcome scoring system was scheduled at 24 months of follow-up, and each component was detected according to: Satisfaction by mean of Patient Global Improvement Inventory scale, Anatomy by mean of POP Quantification system and bulge symptom, Continence by mean of pad use, and Safety by mean of the Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications. Each component produced a binary nominal categorical variable (1 or 0), with a total score of 4 representing cure. As a comparative tool, patients answered a simple yes/no question: “If you had to undergo surgery all over again, would you still do it?”. The degree of concordance was estimated using Cohen’s Kappa test.

Results

According to the S.A.C.S. scoring system, only 160 patients (68.6 %) reached the maximum score of cure. Sensitivity of the S.A.C.S. score was 74.1 %, specificity was 90 %, total diagnostic capacity was 75.5 %. The S.A.C.S. score internal consistency was good; the k-coefficient was higher for the satisfaction component of the score (k = 0.560).

Conclusion

This study proposes an original, simple post-operative scoring system integrating satisfaction, anatomy, continence, and safety reports for patients undergoing surgery for POP, providing a complete, although perfectible, method to accurately report outcomes in all clinical scenarios.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barber MD, Maher C (2013) Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 24:1783–1790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Wu JM, Matthews CA, Conover MM, Pate V, Jonsson Funk M (2014) Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol 123:1201–1206

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clark AL, Gregory T, Smith VJ, Edwards R (2003) Epidemiologic evaluation of reoperation for surgically treated pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1261–1267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hullfish KL, Bovbjerg VE, Gibson J, Steers WD (2002) Patient-centred goals for pelvic floor dysfunction surgery: what is success, and is it achieved? Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:88–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brubaker L, Shull R (2005) EGGS for patient-centred outcomes. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 16:171–173

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Espuña-Pons M, Fillol M, Pascual MA, Rebollo P, Mora AM, Female Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Research Group (Grupo de Investigación en Disfunciones del Suelo Pélvico en la Mujer-GISPEM) (2014) Pelvic floor symptoms and severity of pelvic organ prolapse in women seeking care for pelvic floor problems. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 177:141–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee U, Raz S (2011) Emerging concepts for pelvic organ prolapse surgery: what is cure? Curr Urol Rep 12:62–67

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Artibani W, Pesce F, Prezioso D, Scarpa RM, Zattoni F, Tubaro A, Rizzi CA, Santini AM, Simoni L, FLOW Study Group (2006) Italian validation of the urogenital distress inventory and its application in LUTS patients. Eur Urol 50:1323–1329

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Raz S, Erickson DR (1992) SEAPI-QMM incontinence classi¢cation system. Neurourol Urodyn 111:187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Doran, George T (1981) There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives. Management Review 70 (11)

  11. Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L (2010) Validation of the patient global impression of improvement (PGI-I) for urogenital prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 21:523–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L (2010) A longitudinal study of patient and surgeon goal achievement 2 years after surgery following pelvic floor dysfunction surgery. BJOG 117:1504–1511

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR (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 

  14. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, de Santibañes E, Pekolj J, Slankamenac K, Bassi C, Graf R, Vonlanthen R, Padbury R, Cameron JL, Makuuchi M (2009) The Clavien–Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg 250:187–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  16. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cvach K, Dwyer P (2012) Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse: abdominal and vaginal approaches. World J Urol 30:471–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Toozs-Hobson P, Freeman R, Barber M, Maher C, Haylen B, Athanasiou S, Swift S, Whitmore K, Ghoniem G, de Ridder D, International Urogynecological Association; International Continence Society (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. Neurourol Urodyn 31:415–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lee RK, Mottrie A, Payne CK, Waltregny D (2014) A review of the current status of laparoscopic and robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. Eur Urol 65:1128–1137

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Serati M, Bogani G, Sorice P, Braga A, Torella M, Salvatore S, Uccella S, Cromi A, Ghezzi F (2014) Robot-assisted sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. Eur Urol 66:303–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL 2nd, Schaffer J, Chen Z, Spino C (2009) Pelvic floor disorders network: defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 114:600–609

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD (2007) Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 369:1027–1038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L, Cartwright R (2008) Experiences and expectations of women with urogenital prolapse: a quantitative and qualitative exploration. BJOG 115:1362–1368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lowenstein L, Fitzgerald MP, Kenton K, Dooley Y, Templehof M, Mueller ER, Brubaker L (2008) Patient-selected goals: the fourth dimension in assessment of pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynaecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 19:81–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Robinson D, Anders K, Cardozo L (2003) What do women want? Interpretation of the concept of cure. J Pelvic Med Surg 9:273–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Baskayne K, Willars J, Pitchforth E, Tincello DG (2014) Women’s expectations of prolapse surgery: a retrospective qualitative study. Neurourol Urodyn 33:85–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dietz V, Maher C (2013) Pelvic organ prolapse and sexual function. Int Urogynecol J 24:1853–1857

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Filocamo MT, Serati M, Li Marzi V, Costantini E, Milanesi M, Pietropaolo A, Polledro P, Gentile B, Maruccia S, Fornia S, Lauri I, Alei R, Arcangeli P, Sighinolfi MC, Manassero F, Andretta E, Palazzetti A, Bertelli E, Del Popolo G, Villari D (2014) The Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI): linguistic validation of the Italian version. J Sex Med 11:447–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lawndy SS, Withagen MI, Kluivers KB, Vierhout ME (2011) Between hope and fear: patient’s expectations prior to pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Int Urogynecol J 22:1159–1163

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, University of Perugia, Sant’Andrea delle Fratte, Perugia, 06100, Italy

    Luigi Mearini, Alessandro Zucchi, Elisabetta Nunzi, Manuel Di Biase & Elisabetta Costantini

  2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Vittorio Bini

Authors
  1. Luigi Mearini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Zucchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elisabetta Nunzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Manuel Di Biase
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vittorio Bini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elisabetta Costantini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigi Mearini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mearini, L., Zucchi, A., Nunzi, E. et al. The S.A.C.S. (Satisfaction–Anatomy–Continence–Safety) score for evaluating pelvic organ prolapse surgery: a proposal for an outcome-based scoring system. Int Urogynecol J 26, 1061–1067 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2655-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2655-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation