Patient-Reported Outcomes and Pelvic Organ Prolapse

2020 ◽  
pp. 555-575
Author(s):  
Stavros Athanasiou
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gagyor ◽  
Vladimir Kalis ◽  
Martin Smazinka ◽  
Zdenek Rusavy ◽  
Radovan Pilka ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH+LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH+LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures. Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH+LSC or TLH+LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic. Results. In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH+LSC n = 208 and TLH+LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p= 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006).Conclusion. LSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gagyor ◽  
Vladimir Kalis ◽  
Martin Smazinka ◽  
Zdenek Rusavy ◽  
Radovan Pilka ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is the preferred surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH+LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH+LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures. Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH (cases) versus either LSCH+LSC or TLH+LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic. Results. In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH+LSC n = 208 and TLH+LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the rates of perioperative injuries and complications. Operating time and blood loss were higher in the concomitant hysterectomy compared to the uterine sparing group but this was only significant when comparing LSH to TLH+LSC (p = 0.048). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p= 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006).Conclusion. LSH is associated with shorter operative time and intraoperative blood loss; nevertheless, higher rates of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gagyor ◽  
Vladimir Kalis ◽  
Martin Smazinka ◽  
Zdenek Rusavy ◽  
Radovan Pilka ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH+LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH+LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures. Methods: A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH+LSC or TLH+LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic. Results: In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH+LSC n = 208 and TLH+LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. Operating time and blood loss were higher in the concomitant hysterectomy compared to the uterine sparing group but this was only significant when comparing LSH to TLH+LSC (p = 0.048). There were no statistically significant differences in any of the clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p= 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006). Conclusion: LSH is associated with shorter operative time and intraoperative blood loss; nevertheless, it increases the incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Gagyor ◽  
Vladimir Kalis ◽  
Martin Smazinka ◽  
Zdenek Rusavy ◽  
Radovan Pilka ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Abdominal and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (LSC) is considered the standard surgical option for the management of a symptomatic apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Women who have their uterus, and for whom an LSC is indicated, can have a laparoscopic sacro-hysteropexy (LSH), a laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-cervicopexy (LSCH + LSC) or a total laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic sacro-colpopexy (TLH + LSC). The main aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient reported outcomes of uterine sparing versus concomitant hysterectomy LSC procedures. Methods A retrospective analysis of clinical, imaging and patient reported outcomes at baseline, 3 and 12 months after LSH versus either LSCH + LSC or TLH + LSC between January 2015 and January 2019 in a tertiary referral urogynecology center in Pilsen, the Czech Republic. Results In total, 294 women were included in this analysis (LSH n = 43, LSCH + LSC n = 208 and TLH + LSC n = 43). There were no differences in the incidence of perioperative injuries and complications. There were no statistically significant differences between the concomitant hysterectomy and the uterine sparing groups in any of the operative, clinical or patient reported outcomes except for a significantly lower anterior compartment failure rate (p = 0.017) and higher optimal mesh placement rate at 12 months in women who had concomitant hysterectomy procedures (p = 0.006). Conclusion LSH seems to be associated with higher incidence of anterior compartment failures and suboptimal mesh placement based on postoperative imaging techniques compared to LSC with concomitant hysterectomy.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (47) ◽  
pp. 1-104
Author(s):  
Margaret Maxwell ◽  
Karen Berry ◽  
Sarah Wane ◽  
Suzanne Hagen ◽  
Doreen McClurg ◽  
...  

Background Pelvic organ prolapse is estimated to affect 41–50% of women aged > 40 years. A multicentre randomised controlled trial of individualised pelvic floor muscle training found that pelvic floor muscle training was effective in reducing symptoms of prolapse, improved quality of life and showed clear potential to be cost-effective. Provision of pelvic floor muscle training for prolapse has continued to vary across the UK, with limited availability of specialist physiotherapists to deliver it. Objectives This project aimed to study the implementation and outcomes of different models of delivery to increase the service provision of pelvic floor muscle training, and to follow up treatment outcomes for the original trial participants. Design A realist evaluation of pelvic floor muscle training implementation conducted within three full case study sites and two partial case study sites; an observational prospective cohort study comparing patient-reported outcomes pre and post intervention in all five sites; and a long-term follow-up study linking previous trial participants to routine NHS hospital data. Setting The setting for the realist evaluation was pelvic floor muscle training service delivery models in three NHS sites. The setting for the patient-reported outcome measures study was pelvic floor muscle training services in five NHS sites. Methods Realist evaluation qualitative data were collected at four time points in three case study sites to understand the implementation models, uptake, adherence and impact. Interviews involved service managers/leads, consultants, staff delivering pelvic floor muscle training and women receiving pelvic floor muscle training. Main outcomes measures Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and at 6 and 12 months across five sites, including the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score, health-related quality of life (measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, questionnaire), prolapse severity (measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System), urinary incontinence (measured using International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire – Urinary Incontinence Short Form) and need for further treatment. Results A total of 102 women were recruited to the patient-reported outcome measures cohort study (target, n = 120), and 65 women had matched baseline and 6-month Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Scores. The mean Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score was 10.18 (standard deviation 5.63) at baseline and 6.98 (standard deviation 5.23) at 6 months, representing a statistically significant and clinically meaningful difference. There was no statistically significant difference between the outcomes obtained from delivery by specialist physiotherapists and the outcomes obtained from delivery by other health-care professionals (mean change in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score: –3.95 vs. –2.81, respectively). Services delivered using higher-band physiotherapists only were more costly than services delivered using other staff mixes. The effect of the original pelvic floor muscle training intervention, over a post-intervention period of > 10 years, was a reduction in the odds of any treatment during follow-up (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.37 to 0.99). The realist evaluation revealed stark differences in implementation. The site with a specialist physiotherapy service resisted change because of perceived threats to the specialist role and concerns about care quality. Pelvic floor muscle training delivery by other health-care staff was easier when there was a lack of any existing specialist service; staff had prior training and interest in pelvic health; staff had support, autonomy, time and resources to deliver pelvic floor muscle training as part of their core role; and surrounding services supported a flow of pelvic floor muscle training referrals. Limitations The number of available matched pre and post outcomes for women and the lack of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System examinations were limitations of this study. Conclusions It is possible to train different staff to effectively deliver pelvic floor muscle training to women. Women’s self-reported outcomes significantly improved across all service models. Training should be adequately tailored to differential skill mix needs. Future work Future work should include further implementation of pelvic floor muscle training and should include pre- and post-outcome data collection using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Symptom Score. Study registration This study is registered as Research Registry 4919. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 47. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


Author(s):  
Päivi K. Karjalainen ◽  
Nina K. Mattsson ◽  
Jyrki T. Jalkanen ◽  
Kari Nieminen ◽  
Anna-Maija Tolppanen

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis Patient-reported outcome measures are fundamental tools when assessing effectiveness of treatments. The challenge lies in the interpretation: which magnitude of change in score is meaningful for the patients? The minimal important difference (MID) is defined as the smallest difference in score that patients perceive as important. The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) represents the value of score beyond which patients consider themselves well. We aimed to determine the MID and PASS for Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory-6 (POPDI-6) in pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery. Methods We used data from 2704 POP surgeries from a prospective, population-based cohort. MID was determined with three anchor-based and one distribution-based method. PASS was defined using two different methods. Medians of the estimates were identified. Results The MID estimates with (1) mean change, (2) receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve, (3) 75th percentile, and (4) distribution-based method varied between 22.9–25.0 (median 24.2) points for PFDI-20 and 9.0–12.5 (median 11.3) for POPDI-6. The PASS cutoffs with (1) 75th percentile and (2) ROC curve method varied between 57.7–62.5 (median 60.0) for PFDI-20 and 16.7–17.7 (median 17.2) for POPDI-6. Conclusion A mean difference of 24 points in the PFDI-20 or 11 points in the POPDI-6 can be used as a clinically relevant difference between groups. Postoperative scores ≤ 60 for PFDI-20 and ≤ 17 for POPDI-6 signify acceptable symptom state.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document