盆腔器官脱垂的表型。

IF 0.8 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

重要性:盆腔器官脱垂定量(POP-Q)分期与症状或重要脱垂亚型特征无关。目的:我们假设利用POP-Q测量可以定义有临床意义的脱垂“表型”。主要目的是确定表型及其频率。次要目的是比较不同表型之间的人口统计学、医学特征和症状。研究设计:先前接受脱垂手术的患者根据2个原则回顾性地分为8种表型中的1种:(1)脱垂发生在阴道前壁或后壁下降到阴道膜处或阴道顶点下降到阴道总长度的一半时,(2)脱垂可能存在于前、后和/或根尖间室。比较人口统计学、医学特征和盆底窘迫量表-20 (PFDI-20)反应。采用线性和逻辑回归模型进行比较。结果:AC(前显性和根尖型)表型最常见(501例患者中231例,46.1%),可作为比较参考。无脱垂,P(孤立后),C(孤立根尖)和PC(后显性和根尖)表型较年轻。A(分离前叶)表型较老。P、PC和APC(前、后和根尖)表型的体重指数更高。P型结直肠肛门窘迫量表得分较高。同样,PC表型在肠夹板和直肠脱垂方面得分较高。相反,C表型总PFDI-20评分较低(P = 0.01)。与AC表型相比,只有APC表型在任何PFDI-20问题上没有显著差异。结论:这些表型可能有助于提高对脱垂和脱垂治疗的理解、交流和咨询。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Phenotypes of Pelvic Organ Prolapse.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信