Zoe Sayler, Katie Weston, Colin M Johnson, Victoria Cunningham, Catherine S Bradley, Kimberly A Kenne, Linder Wendt, Patrick Ten Eyck, Joseph T Kowalski
{"title":"盆腔器官脱垂的表型。","authors":"Zoe Sayler, Katie Weston, Colin M Johnson, Victoria Cunningham, Catherine S Bradley, Kimberly A Kenne, Linder Wendt, Patrick Ten Eyck, Joseph T Kowalski","doi":"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stages do not correlate with symptoms or characterize important prolapse subtypes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We hypothesize that clinically meaningful prolapse \"phenotypes\" utilizing POP-Q measurements can be defined. The primary aim was to define the phenotypes and their frequency. Secondary aims were to compare demographics, medical characteristics, and symptoms between phenotypes.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Patients who previously underwent prolapse surgery were retrospectively categorized into 1 of 8 phenotypes based on 2 principles: (1) prolapse exists when the anterior or posterior vaginal wall descend to the hymen or the apex descends half total vaginal length, and (2) prolapse may exist in anterior, posterior, and/or apical compartments. Demographics, medical characteristics, and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) responses were compared. Linear and logistic regression models were used for comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AC (anterior-predominant and apical) phenotype was most common (231 of 501 patients, 46.1%) and served as the reference for comparisons. The no prolapse, P (isolated posterior), C (isolated apical), and PC (posterior-predominant and apical) phenotypes were younger. The A (isolated anterior) phenotype was older. P, PC, and APC (anterior and posterior and apical) phenotypes had greater body mass index. The P phenotype Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory scores were higher. Similarly, the PC phenotype had higher scores for bowel splinting and rectal prolapse. Conversely, the C phenotype total PFDI-20 scores were lower (P = 0.01). Only the APC phenotype had no significant differences in any PFDI-20 question compared with the AC phenotype.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These phenotypes may allow for improved understanding, communication, and counseling about prolapse and prolapse treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":75288,"journal":{"name":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Phenotypes of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.\",\"authors\":\"Zoe Sayler, Katie Weston, Colin M Johnson, Victoria Cunningham, Catherine S Bradley, Kimberly A Kenne, Linder Wendt, Patrick Ten Eyck, Joseph T Kowalski\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SPV.0000000000001640\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stages do not correlate with symptoms or characterize important prolapse subtypes.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We hypothesize that clinically meaningful prolapse \\\"phenotypes\\\" utilizing POP-Q measurements can be defined. The primary aim was to define the phenotypes and their frequency. Secondary aims were to compare demographics, medical characteristics, and symptoms between phenotypes.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Patients who previously underwent prolapse surgery were retrospectively categorized into 1 of 8 phenotypes based on 2 principles: (1) prolapse exists when the anterior or posterior vaginal wall descend to the hymen or the apex descends half total vaginal length, and (2) prolapse may exist in anterior, posterior, and/or apical compartments. Demographics, medical characteristics, and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) responses were compared. Linear and logistic regression models were used for comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The AC (anterior-predominant and apical) phenotype was most common (231 of 501 patients, 46.1%) and served as the reference for comparisons. The no prolapse, P (isolated posterior), C (isolated apical), and PC (posterior-predominant and apical) phenotypes were younger. The A (isolated anterior) phenotype was older. P, PC, and APC (anterior and posterior and apical) phenotypes had greater body mass index. The P phenotype Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory scores were higher. Similarly, the PC phenotype had higher scores for bowel splinting and rectal prolapse. Conversely, the C phenotype total PFDI-20 scores were lower (P = 0.01). Only the APC phenotype had no significant differences in any PFDI-20 question compared with the AC phenotype.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These phenotypes may allow for improved understanding, communication, and counseling about prolapse and prolapse treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001640\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urogynecology (Hagerstown, Md.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000001640","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Importance: The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stages do not correlate with symptoms or characterize important prolapse subtypes.
Objectives: We hypothesize that clinically meaningful prolapse "phenotypes" utilizing POP-Q measurements can be defined. The primary aim was to define the phenotypes and their frequency. Secondary aims were to compare demographics, medical characteristics, and symptoms between phenotypes.
Study design: Patients who previously underwent prolapse surgery were retrospectively categorized into 1 of 8 phenotypes based on 2 principles: (1) prolapse exists when the anterior or posterior vaginal wall descend to the hymen or the apex descends half total vaginal length, and (2) prolapse may exist in anterior, posterior, and/or apical compartments. Demographics, medical characteristics, and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory-20 (PFDI-20) responses were compared. Linear and logistic regression models were used for comparisons.
Results: The AC (anterior-predominant and apical) phenotype was most common (231 of 501 patients, 46.1%) and served as the reference for comparisons. The no prolapse, P (isolated posterior), C (isolated apical), and PC (posterior-predominant and apical) phenotypes were younger. The A (isolated anterior) phenotype was older. P, PC, and APC (anterior and posterior and apical) phenotypes had greater body mass index. The P phenotype Colorectal-Anal Distress Inventory scores were higher. Similarly, the PC phenotype had higher scores for bowel splinting and rectal prolapse. Conversely, the C phenotype total PFDI-20 scores were lower (P = 0.01). Only the APC phenotype had no significant differences in any PFDI-20 question compared with the AC phenotype.
Conclusion: These phenotypes may allow for improved understanding, communication, and counseling about prolapse and prolapse treatment.