Skip to main content

Do patient characteristics impact the relationship between anatomic prolapse and vaginal bulge symptoms?

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Seeing or feeling a vaginal bulge is the most specific symptom for identifying prolapse. Bulge symptoms are becoming increasingly important as a surgical outcome measure. Our objectives were to identify patient characteristics associated with the symptom of a vaginal bulge and to determine whether those characteristics impact the relationship between symptoms and anatomic prolapse.

Methods

A cross-sectional analysis of new urogynecology patients was performed. Standardized history and examination forms were used. Patient characteristics associated with vaginal bulge at p ≤0.10 were entered in logistic regression models. Interactions between patient characteristics and prolapse were tested to determine whether patient factors modified the association between anatomic prolapse and symptoms.

Results

We evaluated 685 patients with mean age of 58.5 years. Patients reporting a vaginal bulge were slightly older, more likely postmenopausal, and had greater parity and body mass index (BMI). They were more likely to report prior prolapse surgery (p <0.05) and more often previously underwent hysterectomy (p = 0.10). In multivariable analysis, prolapse, age group, and vaginal parity were associated with the bulge symptom. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area under the curve (AUC) was 0.87 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.84–0.90], suggesting good predictive value of maximum vaginal descent for a vaginal bulge symptom. The AUC for the youngest women was lower than for middle and older age groups (p < 0.01). The optimal cutoff for defining prolapse associated with a vaginal bulge symptom was the hymen.

Conclusions

Age and vaginal parity were independently associated with the vaginal bulge symptom. The level of vaginal descent did not predict a bulge symptom as accurately in younger patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Dietz HP, Mann KP. What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):451–5.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tan JS, Lukacz ES, Menefee SA, Powell CR, Nager CW, San Diego Pelvic Floor Consortium. Predictive value of prolapse symptoms: a large database study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005;16(3):203–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barber MD. Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48(3):648–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Barber MD, Brubaker L, Nygaard I, Wheeler TL, Schaffer J, Chen Z, et al. Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(3):600–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Manonai J, Wattanayingcharoenchai R. Relationship between pelvic floor symptoms and POP-Q measurements. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;36(6):724–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Espuña-Pons M, Fillol M, Pascual MA, Rebollo P, Mora AM, Female Pelvic Floor Dysfunction Research Group. Pelvic floor symptoms and severity of pelvic organ prolapse in women seeking care for pelvic floor problems. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;177:141–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Barber MD, Walters MD, Bump RC. 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. 2005;193(1):103–13.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating curves; A nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. McKinlay SM, Brambilla DJ, Posner JG. The normal menopause transition. Maturitas. 1992;14(2):103–15.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bradley CS, Nygaard IE, for the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), Vaginal wall descensus and pelvic floor symptoms in older women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106(4):759–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph T. Kowalski.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kowalski, J.T., Melero, G.H., Mahal, A. et al. Do patient characteristics impact the relationship between anatomic prolapse and vaginal bulge symptoms?. Int Urogynecol J 28, 391–396 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3151-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3151-0

Keywords

  • Prolapse
  • POP-Q
  • Vaginal bulge