How accurate is symptomatic and clinical evaluation of prolapse prior to surgical repair?

Abstract

The aim of this study is to assess the accuracy of pre-operative evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse. The design is a prospective observational audit set at the gynaecology department, Teaching Hospital, UK. The population is composed of patients undergoing surgery for prolapse. One hundred and four patients admitted for prolapse surgeries were enrolled in the audit. Patients’ notes were initially reviewed for adequacy of prolapse assessment in the clinic. Patients were then interviewed by the researchers and assessed using a validated Prolapse Quality of Life (P-QOL) questionnaire. The presence of unrecorded symptoms was noted. Prolapse examination in theatre under anaesthesia was compared to the findings in the clinic and the operation performed compared to the proposed operation. The outcome measures were as follows: (1) number of patients who had accurate prolapse symptom assessment before surgery when comparing clinical records with entries on P-QOL questionnaires; (2) number of patients having symptoms related to their pelvic organ prolapse that were not accurately assessed pre-operatively; and (3) the differences, if any, between pre-operative and intra-operative examination of prolapse. Sixteen patients in our cohort (15%) had adequate assessment of their prolapse pre-operatively. Symptoms that were not adequately assessed in descending order were the impact of prolapse on quality of life (76%), sexual function (75%), bowel function (27%) and lower urinary tract symptoms (12.5%). Thirty one patients (30%) had sexual dysfunction, 24 (23%) had bowel symptoms and 23 patients (22%) had urinary symptoms that were not recorded before surgery. Prolapse physical examination was adequate in 59% of the cases. Examinations in theatre were different from clinic findings in 38 cases (37%); 16 cases (42%) had a greater or lesser degree of prolapse than that described in the notes; and 11 cases (29%) had prolapse in a different compartment in the vagina. A combination of both (i.e. different degree of prolapse and prolapse in a different vaginal compartment) was found in another 11 cases (29%). The operation performed was different from the one proposed in the clinic in 21% of the cases (n = 22). Clinical evaluation and examination of patients with vaginal prolapse is often inadequate. Prolapse physical examination in a clinic setting could be different from findings under anaesthesia. This can affect the operation to repair the prolapse. Patients should be counselled about this when listed for surgery.