Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse

Barber, Matthew D. and Maher, Christopher (2013) Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. International Urogynecology Journal, 24 11: 1783-1790. doi:10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9

Author Barber, Matthew D.
Maher, Christopher
Title Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse
Journal name International Urogynecology Journal   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0937-3462
Publication date 2013-11
Year available 2013
Sub-type Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
DOI 10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9
Open Access Status
Volume 24
Issue 11
Start page 1783
End page 1790
Total pages 8
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher Springer
Collection year 2014
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Introduction and hypothesis
The aim was to determine the incidence and prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and describe how outcomes are reported.

Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews, level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 (case reports). The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. A grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. A grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or “majority evidence” from RCTs. A grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or “majority evidence” from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. A grade D “no recommendation possible” would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi .

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when defined by symptoms has a prevalence of 3–6 % and up to 50 % when based upon vaginal examination. Surgery for prolapse is performed twice as commonly as continence surgery and prevalence varies widely from 6 to 18%. The incidence of POP surgery ranges from 1.5 to 1.8 per 1,000 women years and peaks in women aged 60–69. When reporting outcomes of the surgical management of prolapse, authors should include a variety of standardised anatomical and functional outcomes. Anatomical outcomes reported should include all POP-Q points and staging, utilising a traditional definition of success with the hymen as the threshold for success. Assessment should be prospective and assessors blinded as to the surgical intervention performed if possible and without any conflict of interest related to the assessment undertaken (grade C). Subjective success postoperatively should be defined as the absence of a vaginal bulge (grade C). Functional outcomes are best reported using valid, reliable and responsive symptom questionnaires and condition-specific HRQOL instruments (grade C). Sexual function is best reported utilising validated condition-specific HRQOL that assess sexual function or validated sexual function questionnaires such as the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ) or the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). The sexual activity status of all study participants should be reported pre- and postoperatively under the following categories: sexually active without pain, sexually active with pain or not sexually active (grade C). Prolapse surgery should be defined as primary surgery, and repeat surgery sub-classified as primary surgery different site, repeat surgery, complications related to surgery and surgery for non-prolapse-related conditions (grade C).


Significant variation exists in the prevalence and incidence of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and how the outcomes are reported. Much of the variation may be improved by standardisation of definitions and outcomes of reporting on pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
Keyword Pelvic organ prolapse surgery
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Critical review of research, literature review, critical commentary
Collections: Official 2014 Collection
School of Medicine Publications
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 40 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 44 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 10 Nov 2013, 00:46:02 EST by System User on behalf of Obstetrics & Gynaecology - RBWH