Top

Published in:

01-04-2014 | Editorial

The POP-Q classification system: looking back and looking forward

Authors: Paul Riss, Peter L. Dwyer

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 4/2014

Excerpt

Pelvic organ prolapse is one of the most common problems facing every urogynecologist. Understandably, terminology is very important when describing vaginal or uterine descent, for two reasons. First, the physician’s notes must represent the clinical problem so that the physician knows what has been seen and can relate it to a colleague. The second reason is quality assurance and research, where exact terminology is needed to accurately describe changes in pelvic organ prolapse and to be able to make comparisons between institutions and studies. In 1996 Bump et al. published a classification developed by several societies [1]. This POP-Q has been widely adopted and become the de facto standard in clinical medicine and research [2]. …

Bump R, Mattiasson A, BO K, Brubaker L, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith ARB (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMedCrossRef

Auwad W, Freeman RM, Swift S (2004) Is the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POPQ) being used? A survey of members of the International Continence Society (ICS) and the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS). Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 15(5):324–327PubMed

Manonai J, Mouritsen L, Palma P, Contreras-Ortiz O, Korte JE, Swift S (2011) The inter-system association between the simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (S-POP) and the standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POPQ) in describing pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 22(3):347–352. doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1286-y PubMedCrossRef

Geiss IM, Riss PA, Hanzal E, Dungl A (2007) A simple teaching tool for training the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 18(9):1003–1005PubMedCrossRef

Baden WF, Walker TA (1972) Physical diagnosis in the evaluation of vaginal relaxation. Clin Obstet Gynecol 15(4):1055–1069PubMedCrossRef

Bump R. The POP-Q system—two decades of progress and debate. Int Urogynecol J. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2262-0

Harmanli O. POP-Q 2.0: its time has come! Int Urogynecol J. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2252-2

Toozs-Hobson P, Swift S. POP-Q stage I prolapse: is it time to alter our terminology? Int Urogynecol J. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2260-2

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. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2307-4

Title: The POP-Q classification system: looking back and looking forward
Authors: Paul Riss
Peter L. Dwyer
Publication date: 01-04-2014
Publisher: Springer London
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 4/2014
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2311-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

The POP-Q classification system: looking back and looking forward

Excerpt

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Excerpt

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2014

The POP-Q system: two decades of progress and debate

Short-term surgical outcomes and characteristics of patients with mesh complications from pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgery

POP-Q stage I prolapse: Is it time to alter our terminology?

Dorsal onlay buccal mucosal graft urethroplasty in female urethral stricture disease: a single-center experience

Cost effectiveness of radiofrequency microremodeling for stress urinary incontinence

Complex rectovaginal fistula repair with non-cross-linked porcine graft augmentation