medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2019, Number 09

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2019; 87 (09)

Hymen as a cut-off point for symptomatic genital prolapse

Rodríguez-Colorado ES, Ramírez-Isarraraz C, Granados-Martínez V, Gorbea- Chávez V, Olvera-Delgado JJ

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 583-589
PDF size: 298.78 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To evaluate the discriminatory value of anatomical cut-off points for symptomatic prolapse in women with pelvic organ prolapse.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective cohort study, conducted at the Gynecological Urology Clinic of the National Institute of Perinatology, between January 2013 and December 2017. Inclusion criteria: patients operated for pelvic organ prolapse, with simplified quantification system of pelvic organ prolapse (S-POP) and interrogation of pelvic floor symptoms according to the International Continence Society (ICS). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and area under the curve for cut-off points of the anterior (Ba), posterior (Bp) and apical (C) compartments were calculated.
Results: 174 patients were included. The symptom of a foreign body sensation in the vagina increased simultaneously with the degree of prolapse. The areas under the curve (AUC) for point Ba was 0.73 (95% CI 0.65-0.81), Bp 0.63 (95% CI 0.53-0.72) and C 0.78 (95% CI 0.71-0.85). When using the hymen as a cut-off point it was observed that Ba showed a sensitivity of 0.76 and specificity of 0.54, Bp with sensitivity of 0.54 and specificity 0.86 and for C the cut-off point of -5 cm with respect to the hymen had sensitivity of 0.66 and specificity of 0.75.
Conclusion: There is adequate discriminatory value between the hymen as a cut-off point for symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and foreign body sensation in the vagina, according to the criteria of the simplified quantification system (S-POP).


REFERENCES

  1. Haylen BT, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) Joint Report on the Terminology for Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP): International Urogynecological Association (IUGA). Neurourol Urodyn 2016;35(2):137-68. DOI 10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1

  2. Geynisman-Tan J, et al. Surgical updates in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Rambam Maimonides Med J 2017;8(2):e0017. DOI:10.5041/RMMJ.10294

  3. Cetinkaya SE, et al. Correlation of pelvic organ prolapse staging with lower urinary tract symptoms, sexual dysfunction, and quality of life. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24(10):1645-50. DOI 10.1007/s00192-013-2072-4

  4. Dietz HP, et al. What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent. Int Urogynecol J 2014;25(4):451-5. DOI 10.1007/s00192-013-2307-4

  5. Manonai J, et al. The inter-system association between the simplified pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (SPOP) and the standard pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POPQ) in describing pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2011;22(3):347-52. DOI 10.1007/s00192- 010-1286-y

  6. Swift S, et al. Validation of a simplified technique for using the POPQ pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Int Urogynecol J 2006;17(6):615-20. DOI 10.1007/s00192- 006-0076-z

  7. Eusebi P. Diagnostic accuracy measures. Cerebrovasc Dis 2013;36(4):267-72. DOI: 10.1159/000353863

  8. Swift S, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): The distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. marzo de 2005;192(3):795-806. DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.602

  9. Manonai J, et al. Relationship between pelvic floor symptoms and POP-Q measurements: Relationship Between Pelvic Floor Symptoms and POP-Q. Neurourol Urodyn 2016;35(6):724-7. DOI 10.1002/nau.22786

  10. Gutman RE, et al. Is there a pelvic organ prolapse threshold that predicts pelvic floor symptoms? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008;199(6):683.e1-683.e7. DOI:10.1016/j. ajog.2008.07.028

  11. Barber MD, et al. Can we screen for pelvic organ prolapse without a physical examination in epidemiologic studies? Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195(4):942-8. DOI:10.1016/j. ajog.2006.02.050

  12. Miedel A, et al. Symptoms and pelvic support defects in specific compartments: Obstet Gynecol 2008;112(4):851-8. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318187c550

  13. Willis BH. Spectrum bias--why clinicians need to be cautious when applying diagnostic test studies. Fam Pract 2008;25(5):390-6. DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmn051

  14. Leeflang MMG, et al. Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(1):5-12. DOI: 10.1016/j. jclinepi.2008.04.007

  15. Mulherin SA, et al. Spectrum Bias or Spectrum Effect? Subgroup variation in diagnostic test evaluation. Ann Intern Med 2002;137(7):598. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-137-7- 200210010-00011




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com