Measuring Pelvic Organ Prolapse: An Evolution.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

Advances in our understanding of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) have been made with the introduction of valid, reliable measures of anatomy and patient-reported outcome measures.

METHODS

This review provides an overview of the evolution of POP measurement and its implications for clinical practice and research.

RESULTS

Since the introduction of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POPQ), studies have demonstrated that some degree of loss of anatomic support is normal, with as many as 40% of normal women having stage 2 prolapse. Vaginal support is dynamic and can wax and wane but is largely stable over time. Vaginal bulge symptoms are the most reliable and specific symptom for POP and the hymen is an important threshold for symptom development. Most pelvic floor symptoms have only weak to moderate correlation with the anatomic severity of POP. Treatment success rates are highly variable depending upon criteria used and definitions of anatomic success commonly used are too strict and often not clinically relevant. There is substantial discordance between subjective and anatomic measures of success, and both are dynamic, fluctuating between success and failure for many patients without intervening treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Pelvic organ prolapse is multidimensional, dynamic, and has a complex impact on patients. Patients' symptoms are more clinically relevant than anatomic support. Symptomatic cure, particularly the absence of vaginal bulge symptoms, is more clinically relevant than anatomic cure and composite outcomes can be misleading and overestimate failure rates. Future studies should compare treatments using continuous variables along multiple dimensions rather than using composite outcomes or dichotomizing patients into success or failure.