French translation of 'An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction' published in Int Urogynecol J 2010;21(1):5–26

International audience; INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS:Given its increasing complexity, the terminology for female pelvic floor disorders needs to be updated in addition to existing terminology of the lower urinary tract. To do this, it seems preferable to adopt a female-specific approach and build on a consensus based on clinical practice.METHODOLOGY:This paper summarizes the work of the standardization and terminology committees of two international scientific societies, namely the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) and the International Continence Society (ICS). These committees were assisted by many external expert referees. A ranking into relevant major clinical categories and sub-categories was developed in order to allocate an alphanumeric code to each definition. An extensive process of 15 internal and external reviews was set up to study each definition in detail, with decisions taken collectively (consensus).RESULTS:Terminology was developed for female pelvic floor disorders, bringing together more than 250 definitions. It is clinically based and the six most common diagnoses are defined. The emphasis was placed on clarity and user-friendliness to make this terminology accessible to practitioners and trainees in all the specialties involved in female pelvic floor disorders. Imaging investigations (ultrasound, radiology, MRI) exclusively for women have been added to the text, relevant figures have also been included to complete the text and help clarify the meaning. Regular reviews are planned and are also required to keep the document up-to-date and as widely acceptable as possible.CONCLUSIONS:The work conducted led to the development of a consensual terminology of female pelvic floor disorders. This document has been designed to provide substantial assistance in clinical practice and research.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:4.