Search

Introduction and Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there would be a significant difference in changes in obstructed defecation symptoms and posterior compartment prolapse between women who underwent posterior vaginal wall prolapse repair (PR) and those who did not., Methods: This was a two-site prospective cohort study of women undergoing prolapse or incontinence surgery in which a PR was, or was not, performed at the discretion of the surgeon. Women were assessed using validated obstructed defecation questionnaires and standardized examination measures (including POP-Q, measurement of transverse gh, and assessment for a rectovaginal pocket and laxity) prior to pelvic surgery and 12 weeks after surgery., Results: Of 68 women who underwent surgery, 43 had PR. The PR group had higher obstructed defecation symptoms and greater posterior compartment prolapse at baseline. At 12 weeks, obstructed defecation symptoms had improved significantly more in the PR group than in the no PR group (all p < 0.03). Anatomic outcomes showed greater improvement in point Bp in the PR group (-3.4 vs. -0.7 no PR, p < 0.001) and resolution of the rectovaginal pocket (86 % vs. 42 %, p = 0.002). There were no significant changes in obstructed defecation symptoms or anatomic outcomes from baseline in the no PR group, while the PR group showed significantly improved obstructed defecation symptoms and anatomic outcomes after repair (p < 0.001 for both)., Conclusions: Significant improvements in obstructed defecation symptoms and posterior compartment prolapse were seen after PR, but not in women who did not receive PR. Obstructed defecation symptoms, Bp and rectovaginal pocket were the measures best able to demonstrate improvement after PR. We recommend the use of these measures to assess the impact of surgery in the posterior compartment.

Introduction and Hypothesis: Optimal measures for assessing anatomy and defecatory symptoms related to posterior compartment prolapse are unknown. Our objectives were: (1) to test the inter- and intrarater reliability of commonly used or reported anatomic measures of posterior compartment prolapse performed in the clinic setting and under anesthesia; and (2) to examine the correlation between posterior compartment anatomy and defecatory symptoms prior to surgical intervention., Methods: A prospective cohort of women with pelvic floor disorders was assessed using a variety of validated questionnaires and standardized examination measures at baseline, at a preoperative visit, and intraoperatively. Inter- and intrarater reliability for anatomic measures were assessed by two separate examiners at the initial visit and repeated by one of the original examiners at a preoperative visit. Reliability was measured using kappa or intraclass correlations according to data type. Symptom and anatomic measure correlations were analyzed using Spearman rank tests., Results: Mean age of the 120 women recruited was 57 ± 15 years, 49 (41 %) had a point Bp ≥ 0; 59 % reported at least moderate bother from at least one obstructed defecation symptom on the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI). At baseline, most anatomic measures showed at least moderate to good inter/intrarater reliability (> 0.5). There were no moderate or better correlations between any symptom and anatomic measure (all r <  0.27)., Conclusions: Most anatomic measures of posterior compartment prolapse are reliable and reproducible; however, they do not correlate well with defecatory symptoms.