Prolapse symptoms in overweight and obese women before and after weight loss.
ABSTRACT: The objective of this study was to estimate the association between body mass index (BMI) and pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and bother among overweight and obese women with urinary incontinence before and after weight loss.Women (N = 338) were randomized to either an intensive 6-month weight loss or educational program (control); they were evaluated for prolapse symptoms at baseline and 6 months. Symptomatic prolapse was defined as a positive response to at least 1 prolapse subscale question of the Urogenital Distress Inventory. "Bother" was defined as responses of slight, moderate, or great. Women with prolapse symptoms were analyzed by baseline BMI category: overweight, obese, and severely obese at baseline and at 6 months. Proportional odds regression and ? tests for trend were used for analysis.Age mean was 53 (SD, 10) years, BMI mean was 36 (SD, 6) kg/m, and 78% were white. A higher proportion of obese women reported feeling vaginal bulging compared with overweight women (13% vs 0%, P = <0.01). At baseline, 37% (n = 124) reported bothersome "lower abdominal pressure"; 18% (n = 62), bothersome "heaviness in the pelvic area"; and 14% (n = 48), bothersome "pelvic discomfort when standing." Nine percent (n = 31) reported bothersome "feeling," and 2% (n = 6) reported bothersome "seeing a bulge" in the vagina. At 6 months, there were no significant differences in improvement of self-reported bothersome prolapse symptoms in women in the weight loss or the control group.In this study of overweight and obese women, increasing BMI was associated with only "feeling" a vaginal bulge. Weight loss did not improve bothersome prolapse symptoms.
Project description:<h4>Introduction and hypothesis</h4>Vaginal bulging is considered the key symptom for genital organ prolapse. The aim was to investigate the age-related prevalence and frequency of symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse (sPOP) and other pelvic floor symptoms in nonpregnant nullipara aged 25-64 years.<h4>Methods</h4>This national postal and web-based questionnaire survey was conducted in 2014 and included four independent random samples of women aged 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, and 55-64 years. The association of sPOP with demographics and with other pelvic floor conditions and with clustering to other pelvic floor conditions, was presented in women with and without sPOP. Logistic regression was used to identify and rank variables associated with symptomatic prolapse.<h4>Results</h4>The response rate was 52% (n?=?10,187) and 726 nullipara confirmed sPOP. Women with sPOP were younger (p?<?0.001), shorter (p?<?0.001), and more often overweight and obese (p?<?0.01) compared with asymptomatic women. Previous surgery for prolapse was reported by 15 women only (0.16%). Symptomatic POP decreased from 9.8% in the youngest age group (25-34 years) to 6.1% in the oldest (55-64 years) (p?<?0.0001). Symptomatic POP was more often experienced as bothersome (p?=?0.012), and aggravated by straining and heavy lifting (p?=?0.003), in older women. Vaginal/vulval chafing/rubbing feeling was most prevalent among the youngest 14.2%, decreasing to 7.8% among the oldest (<0.0001). This symptom occurred three to five times more often in those with sPOP (p?<?0.0001). Clustering of pelvic floor symptoms was four times more prevalent in women with sPOP (23.2% versus 6.1%) (p?<?0.0001).<h4>Conclusions</h4>The high prevalence of sPOP in this study was contradictory to most earlier reports, which have shown that genital prolapse is rare in nullipara. The explanation of our results may be the low probability of the clinical condition, the dominance of weak and infrequent symptoms, and not least clustering of alternative conditions mimicking sPOP.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To retrospectively compare surgical success and complications between vaginal vault prolapse compared with uterovaginal prolapse in women who underwent apical prolapse repair for stage II-IV prolapse. METHODS:Women in one of three Pelvic Floor Disorders Network prolapse surgical trials were included. Absence of bothersome bulge symptoms, no prolapse beyond the hymen, and no subsequent prolapse treatment defined success and was our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included comparison of quality-of-life measures, anatomic changes, and adverse events. Pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) and quality-of-life measures were administered at baseline and 1-2 years postoperatively. Comparisons were controlled for study site, age, body mass index, baseline POP-Q, apical and anterior or posterior repair performed, and prior prolapse repair. Outcomes measured at multiple time points were analyzed using longitudinal models to assess whether differences existed across study follow-up. RESULTS:Four hundred twenty-one women underwent vault prolapse, and 601 underwent uterovaginal prolapse apical repair. The vault prolapse group was older, more likely to be white, and to have prior urinary incontinence or prolapse repair, stage IV prolapse, and more prolapse bother on a validated scale (all P?.034). The vault prolapse group was more likely to undergo sacrocolpopexy (228/421 [54%] vs 93/601 [15%]); the uterovaginal prolapse group was more likely to undergo vaginal repair (508/601 [85%] vs 193/421 [46%] P<.001). There were no differences in success (odds ratio [OR] 0.76 for vault prolapse vs uterovaginal prolapse, 95% CI 0.51-1.15, P=.20), changes in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores (-79.4 vs -79.8, P=.89), postoperative POP-Q point C measurements (-7.0 vs -7.1 cm, P=.41), or serious adverse events (86/421 [20%] vs 90/601 [15%], P=.86) between groups. Among women who underwent a vaginal approach for repair of vault prolapse (n=193) or uterovaginal prolapse (n=508), there were no differences in success rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.43-1.04, P=.09) at 1-2 years postoperatively. CONCLUSION:Surgical success of stage II-IV vault prolapse and uterovaginal prolapse apical repair was similar whether performed vaginally or abdominally at 1-2 years postoperatively.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pelvic floor myofascial pain, which is predominantly identified in the muscles of the levator ani and obturator internus, has been observed in women with chronic pelvic pain and other pelvic floor disorder symptoms, and is hypothesized to contribute to their symptoms. OBJECTIVES:To describe the prevalence of pelvic floor myofascial pain in patients presenting with pelvic floor disorder symptoms and to investigate whether severity of pelvic floor myofascial pain on examination correlates with degree of pelvic floor disorder symptom bother. STUDY DESIGN:All new patients seen at 1 tertiary referral center between 2014 and 2016 were included in this retrospectively assembled cross-sectional study. Pelvic floor myofascial pain was determined by transvaginal palpation of the bilateral obturator internus and levator ani muscles and scored as a discrete number on an 11-point verbal pain rating scale (range, 0-10) at each site. Scores were categorized as none (0), mild (1-3), moderate (4-6), and severe (7-10) for each site. Pelvic floor disorder symptom bother was assessed by the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory short form scores. The correlation between these 2 measures was calculated using Spearman rank and partial rank correlation coefficients. RESULTS:A total of 912 new patients were evaluated. After exclusion of 79 with an acute urinary tract infection, 833 patients were included in the final analysis. Pelvic floor myofascial pain (pain rated >0 in any muscle group) was identified in 85.0% of patients: 50.4% rated as severe, 25.0% moderate, and 9.6% mild. In unadjusted analyses and those adjusted for postmenopausal status, severity of pelvic floor myofascial pain was significantly correlated with subjective prolapse symptoms such as pelvic pressure and heaviness but not with objective prolapse symptoms (seeing or feeling a vaginal bulge or having to push up on a bulge to start or complete urination) or leading edge. Severity of myofascial pain at several individual pelvic floor sites was also independently correlated with lower urinary tract symptoms, including pain in the lower abdomen (myofascial pain at all sites) and difficulty emptying the bladder (right obturator internus and left levator ani); and with defecatory dysfunction, including sensation of incomplete rectal emptying (pain at all sites combined and the right obturator internus), anal incontinence to flatus (pain at all sites combined), and pain with defecation (pain at all sites combined, and the right obturator internus and left levator ani). CONCLUSION:Pelvic floor myofascial pain was common in patients seeking evaluation for pelvic floor disorder symptoms. Location and severity of pelvic floor myofascial pain was significantly correlated with degree of symptom bother, even after controlling for postmenopausal status. Given the high prevalence of pelvic floor myofascial pain in these patients and correlation between pain severity and degree of symptom bother, a routine assessment for pelvic floor myofascial pain should be considered for all patients presenting for evaluation of pelvic floor symptoms.
Project description:INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal noise (VN) is a symptom of pelvic floor (PF) dysfunction and has been described in a few studies. No other risk factors have been described besides parity and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Underlying mechanisms of VN are unclear. Aims of this study were to describe prevalence, bother and relation between VN and PF (muscle)(dys)function. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed on a general population of 2,921 women (aged 45-85 years). Questionnaires were filled in by 1,397 women, and 800 were selected at random to undergo vaginal examination for POP Quantification and PF muscle function assessment. Chi-square tests, Student's t test and multivariate logistic regression were performed (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Response rate was 62.7%. Prevalence of VN was 12.8%; 72.1% reported only a little bother. Odds ratios for parity and solid stool were high. CONCLUSIONS: VN was strongly related to many symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction, but it was only causing a little bother.
Project description:Pelvic organ prolapse is highly prevalent, and negatively affects a woman's quality of life. Women with bothersome prolapse may be offered pessary management or may choose to undergo corrective surgery. In choosing the most appropriate surgical procedure, there are many factors to consider. These may include the location(s) of anatomic defects, the severity of prolapse symptoms, the activity level of the woman, and concerns regarding the durability of the repair. In many instances, women and their surgeons are challenged to weigh the risks and benefits of native tissue versus mesh-augmented repairs. Though mesh-augmented repairs may offer better durability, they are also associated with unique complications, such as mesh erosion. Furthermore, newer surgical techniques of mesh placement via abdominal or vaginal routes may result in different outcomes compared to traditional techniques. Biologic grafts may also be considered to improve durability of a surgical repair, while avoiding potential complications of synthetic mesh. In this article, we review many of the clinical challenges that gynecologic surgeons face in the surgical management of vaginal prolapse. Furthermore, we review data that can help guide decision making when treating women with pelvic organ prolapse.
Project description:The objective of this study was to determine if differences exist in pelvic symptom distress and impact on women randomized to pessary versus behavioral therapy for treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI).Change in symptom and condition-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures were compared between pessary and behavioral groups 3 months after randomization in the Ambulatory Treatments for Leakage Associated With Stress Incontinence trial. Four hundred forty-six women with symptoms of SUI were randomized to continence pessary, behavioral therapy (pelvic floor muscle training and continence strategies) or combination therapy. Validated measures utilized included urinary, prolapse, and colorectal scales of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory; urinary, prolapse, and colorectal scales of the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire; and Stress and Urge scales of the Questionnaire for Urinary Incontinence Diagnosis. Student t test and analysis of variance were used to compare scores within and between groups.Mean age of participants was 49.8 (SD, 11.9) years; 84% were white, and 10% were African American. One hundred forty-nine were randomized to pessary, and 146 to behavioral therapy. Baseline symptoms and HRQOL scores were significantly reduced within treatment arms at 3 months after randomization, but there was no statistically significant difference between groups.There was no difference in pelvic floor symptom bother and HRQOL between the pessary and behavioral therapy arms in women undergoing conservative treatment for SUI. Individualized preference issues should be considered in the approach to the nonsurgical treatment of SUI.
Project description:INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: In selected populations, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) was associated with bladder/bowel symptoms, but data on the general female population are lacking. Our aim was to obtain normative data on the prevalence of POP and pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) symptoms and signs and to identify associations. METHODS: Validated questionnaires on POP and PFD (urogenital distress inventory, (UDI) and defaecation distress inventory (DDI)) were sent to a general population of 2,979 women (aged 45-85 years). Data were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test, chi square test and Spearman's rank correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Response rate was 62.7%. Associations between POP stage and parity (0.002) and vaginal bulging (<0.001) are significant. Anatomical locations of POP and PFD symptoms correlated significantly with incontinence of flatus, feeling anal prolapse, manual evacuation of stool, vaginal bulging, constipation and pain during faecal urge (p < or = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies should be developed to alleviate obstructive bowel disorders associated with POP.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To assess independent risk factors for surgical failure and worsening pelvic floor symptoms within 5 years after vaginal prolapse surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>This secondary analysis includes OPTIMAL (Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss) (n=374) and E-OPTIMAL (Extended) (n=285) trial participants. Surgical failure was defined as apical descent greater than one third of the total vaginal length, anterior or posterior vaginal wall past the hymen, subsequent surgery or bothersome vaginal bulge. Worsening pelvic floor symptoms were defined as increases from baseline as large as the minimally important difference for subscale scores of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory: 11 for the Urinary Distress Inventory and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory and 34.3 for the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory. Outcomes were measured at 6 months then 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years. Chi-square and t test results from bivariate models and clinical relevance were used to inform final models.<h4>Results</h4>Baseline risk factors for surgical failure were Hispanic ethnicity (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.92, 95% CI 1.17-3.15), perineal body (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.63), and pretreatment Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.28). Risk factors for worsening of pelvic floor symptoms were pretreatment Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score (aOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.94) for worsening Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory score, vaginal deliveries (aOR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.44) and pretreatment Urinary Distress Inventory score (aOR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80-0.93) for worsening Urinary Distress Inventory score, and age (aOR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05) and pretreatment Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory score (aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98) for worsening Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory score.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Hispanic ethnicity, larger preoperative perineal body, and higher pretreatment Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores were risk factors for surgical failure up to 5 years after vaginal prolapse repair. Participants with higher baseline Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory scores were less likely to worsen. Risk factors for worsening Urinary Distress Inventory and Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory scores included more vaginal deliveries and increased age, respectively.<h4>Clinical trial registration</h4>NCT00597935, NCT01166373.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To develop statistical models predicting recurrent pelvic organ prolapse, surgical complications, and change in health status 12 months after apical prolapse surgery. METHODS:Logistic regression models were developed using a combined cohort from three randomized trials and two prospective cohort studies from 1,301 participants enrolled in surgical studies conducted by the Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Composite recurrent prolapse was defined as prolapse beyond the hymen; the presence of bothersome bulge symptoms; or prolapse reoperation or retreatment within 12 months after surgery. Complications were defined as any serious adverse event or Dindo grade III complication within 12 months of surgery. Significant change in health status was defined as a minimum important change of SF-6D utility score (±0.035 points) from baseline. Thirty-two candidate risk factors were considered for each model and model accuracy was measured using concordance indices. All indices were internally validated using 1,000 bootstrap resamples to correct for bias. RESULTS:The models accurately predicted composite recurrent prolapse (concordance index=0.72, 95% CI 0.69-0.76), bothersome vaginal bulge (concordance index=0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.77), prolapse beyond the hymen (concordance index=0.74, 95% CI 0.70-0.77), serious adverse event (concordance index=0.60, 95% CI 0.56-0.64), Dindo grade III or greater complication (concordance index=0.62, 95% CI 0.58-0.66), and health status improvement (concordance index=0.64, 95% CI 0.62-0.67) or worsening (concordance index=0.63, 95% CI 0.60-0.67). Calibration curves demonstrated all models were accurate through clinically useful predicted probabilities. CONCLUSION:These prediction models are able to provide accurate and discriminating estimates of prolapse recurrence, complications, and health status 12 months after prolapse surgery.
Project description:Importance:Uterosacral ligament suspension (ULS) and sacrospinous ligament fixation (SSLF) are commonly performed pelvic organ prolapse procedures despite a lack of long-term efficacy data. Objective:To compare outcomes in women randomized to (1) ULS or SSLF and (2) usual care or perioperative behavioral therapy and pelvic floor muscle training (BPMT) for vaginal apical prolapse. Design, Setting, and Participants:This 2?×?2 factorial randomized clinical trial was conducted at 9 US medical centers. Eligible participants who completed the Operations and Pelvic Muscle Training in the Management of Apical Support Loss Trial enrolled between January 2008 and March 2011 and were followed up 5 years after their index surgery from April 2011 through June 2016. Interventions:Two randomizations: (1) BPMT (n?=?186) or usual care (n?=?188) and (2) surgical intervention (ULS: n?=?188 or SSLF: n?=?186). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary surgical outcome was time to surgical failure. Surgical failure was defined as (1) apical descent greater than one-third of total vaginal length or anterior or posterior vaginal wall beyond the hymen or retreatment for prolapse (anatomic failure), or (2) bothersome bulge symptoms. The primary behavioral outcomes were time to anatomic failure and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores (range, 0-300). Results:The original study randomized 374 patients, of whom 309 were eligible for this extended trial. For this study, 285 enrolled (mean age, 57.2 years), of whom 244 (86%) completed the extended trial. By year 5, the estimated surgical failure rate was 61.5% in the ULS group and 70.3% in the SSLF group (adjusted difference, -8.8% [95% CI, -24.2 to 6.6]). The estimated anatomic failure rate was 45.6% in the BPMT group and 47.2% in the usual care group (adjusted difference, -1.6% [95% CI, -21.2 to 17.9]). Improvements in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory scores were -59.4 in the BPMT group and -61.8 in the usual care group (adjusted mean difference, 2.4 [95% CI, -13.7 to 18.4]). Conclusions and Relevance:Among women who had undergone vaginal surgery for apical pelvic organ vaginal prolapse, there was no significant difference between ULS and SSLF in rates of surgical failure and no significant difference between perioperative behavioral muscle training and usual care on rates of anatomic success and symptom scores at 5 years. Compared with outcomes at 2 years, rates of surgical failure increased during the follow-up period, although prolapse symptom scores remained improved. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01166373.