Relationship between the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) before and after anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery
1 Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Department of Clinical Research, Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, SDU2 Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Department of Clinical Research, Det Sundhedsvidenskabelige Fakultet, SDU
The aim of this study was to investigate the degree of correlation between the Pelvic Organ Quantification system (POP-Q) measurements and symptom questionnaire scores before and after surgery. This was a part of a randomized controlled study comparing conventional colporrhaphy with mesh repair surgery. METHODS: The correlation between POP-Q measurements and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7) and Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) scores was investigated in 164 women 55 years or older scheduled for primary anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery at baseline and the correlation between the change in point Ba and scores following surgery. Statistical analyses used McNemar's and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, Spearman's rank-order correlation, and multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Surgery significantly improved POP-Q, PFIQ-7, and PFDI-20 scores, including subscales. We observed weak correlations between POP-Q and PFIQ-7, including subscales (r 0.173-0.324, p < 0.05), and PFDI-20, including the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory (POPDI) subscale (r 0.180-0.211, p < 0.05). Regression analysis demonstrated a significant relationship between point Ba and PFIQ-7 (p = 0.001) and PFDI-20 (p = 0.04), respectively. Furthermore, we observed a significant relationship between the change in point Ba (following surgery) and change in scores; point Ba following surgery was significantly correlated with symptoms of bulging (r = 0.303, p < 0.01) and bladder-emptying problems (r = 0.213, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The weak correlation between POP-Q and urogenital symptoms based on questionnaire scores suggests that neither scoring system is optimal.
International Urogynecology Journal, 2015, Vol 26, Issue 2, p. 195-200