Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal 2/2003

01-06-2003 | Original Article

Effects of examination technique modifications on pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) results

Authors: Anthony G. Visco, John T. Wei, Leslie Ain McClure, Victoria L. Handa, Ingrid E. Nygaard

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 2/2003

Login to get access

Abstract

The pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q) is currently the most quantitative, site-specific system for describing pelvic organ prolapse. To ensure that anatomic outcomes can be optimally assessed, investigators in the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network evaluated the impact of specific technique variations on POP-Q measurements performed on 133 patients by 16 examiners at seven sites. Values for genital hiatus and perineal body were higher when measured with maximal strain than on resting. With the exception of TVL, internal points did not differ significantly when measured with or without a speculum. The maximum extent of prolapse was best seen with the patient standing. These results suggest that genital hiatus and perineal body should be measured at rest and during straining, as the measurements may assess different aspects of pelvic floor function, and that internal points can be measured with or without a speculum. They also emphasize the value of the standing examination to observe the maximum extent of pelvic organ prolapse.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMed Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMed
2.
go back to reference Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW et al (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 175:1467–1470; discussion 1470–1471PubMed Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW et al (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 175:1467–1470; discussion 1470–1471PubMed
3.
go back to reference Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD (1996) Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 7:121–124 Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD (1996) Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 7:121–124
4.
go back to reference Barber MD, Lambers A, Visco AG et al (2000) Effect of patient position on clinical evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 96:18–22CrossRefPubMed Barber MD, Lambers A, Visco AG et al (2000) Effect of patient position on clinical evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 96:18–22CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Swift SE (2000) The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285CrossRefPubMed Swift SE (2000) The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care. Am J Obstet Gynecol 183:277–285CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Heit M, Culligan P, Rosenquist C et al (2002) Is pelvic organ prolapse a cause of pelvic or low back pain? Obstet Gynecol 99:23–28CrossRefPubMed Heit M, Culligan P, Rosenquist C et al (2002) Is pelvic organ prolapse a cause of pelvic or low back pain? Obstet Gynecol 99:23–28CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Effects of examination technique modifications on pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) results
Authors
Anthony G. Visco
John T. Wei
Leslie Ain McClure
Victoria L. Handa
Ingrid E. Nygaard
Publication date
01-06-2003
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 2/2003
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-002-1030-3

Other articles of this Issue 2/2003

International Urogynecology Journal 2/2003 Go to the issue