Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of preoperative and intraoperative evaluation of patients undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system

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

Abstract

Objective:To compare the pre- and intraoperative situation using the POP-Q system during optimally standardized conditions of both examinations. Study design: In a prospective observational study, 108 women were compared. The POP-Q in the outpatient department (preoperative) was compared with the situation just prior to surgery after full anesthesia was reached (intraoperative). During the intraoperative measurement, traction with 0.5 kg force was applied on all relevant places. Results: The pre- and intraoperative measurements were all significant correlated with the R-values between 0.43 and 0.85. All six points, which are measured during the POP-Q, were more prolapsed in the intra- as compared with the preoperative situation. The points Bp, C, and D were significantly more prolapsed, but for the points Aa, Ba, and Ap this was not significant. Fifteen patients were upstaged by the intraoperative measurements and five patients were downstaged in the overall POP-Q grading system. Conclusions: Intraoperative evaluation of the prolapse can reveal significant changes as compared with the preoperative situation. In general, the prolapse is more pronounced especially in the middle and posterior compartment.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Olsen AL, Smith V, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Friedman EA, Little WA (1961) The conflict of nomenclature for descensus uteri. Am J Obstet Gynecol 81:817–820

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Porges RF (1963) A practical system of diagnosis and classification of pelvic relaxations. Surg Gynecol Obstet 117:761–773

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baden WF, Walker TA (1972) Genesis of the vaginal profile: a correlated classification of pelvic relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15:1048–1054

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Brubaker L, Norton P (1996) Current clinical nomenclature for description of pelvic organ prolapse. J Pelvic Surg 2:257–259

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bump RC, Matiason A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith ARB (1996) The standardisation of terminology of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW, Harris RL, Hamilton LF, Swift SE, Bump RC (1996) Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons and American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:1467–1471

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Steele A, Malipeddi P, Welgoss J, Soled S, Kohli N, Karram M (1998) Teaching the pelvic organ prolapse quantitation system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 179:1458–1464

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bland DR, Earle BB, Vitolins MZ, Burke G (1999) Use of the pelvic organ prolapse staging system of the International Continence Society in perimenopausal women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 181:1324–1328

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nichols DH, Randall CL (1996) Vaginal surgery. 4th edn. Williams& Wilkins, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  11. Vineyard DD, Kuehl TJ, Coates KW, Shull BL (2002) A comparison of preoperative and intraoperative evaluations for patients who undergo site-specific operation for the correction of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:1155–1159

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Haeusler G, Sam G, Chiari A, Tempfer C, Hanzal E, Koelbl H (1998) Effect of spinal anesthesia on the lower urinary tract in continent women. Br J Obstet Gynecol 105:103–106

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bartsscht KD, DeLancey JOL (1988) A technique to study the passive supports of the uterus. Obstet Gynecol 72:940–943

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Handa VL, Garett 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 190:27–32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Gynaecology, Huispost 415, University Medical Centre St Radboud, Postbus 6500, HB, Nijmegen, Gelderland, The Netherlands

    Mark E Vierhout, Jackie Stoutjesdijk & Johan Spruijt

Authors
  1. Mark E Vierhout
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jackie Stoutjesdijk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Johan Spruijt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark E Vierhout.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vierhout, M.E., Stoutjesdijk, J. & Spruijt, J. A comparison of preoperative and intraoperative evaluation of patients undergoing pelvic reconstructive surgery for pelvic organ prolapse using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Int Urogynecol J 17, 46–49 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1347-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-005-1347-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation