Influence of prior delivery mode on perineal trauma risk.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a previous pregnancy and delivery on perineal trauma rates in the subsequent vaginal birth. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. The perineal outcomes of secundiparous women with history of previous (first) delivery in one of three categories: failed operative vaginal delivery (FOVD) and second stage emergency caesarean section (EmCS); elective caesarean section (ELCS), and vaginal delivery (VD) with intact perineum, were compared with a control primiparous group. RESULTS: The percentage OASIs at first vaginal delivery after prior FOVD+EmCS was 17.3%(n=9), 12.9%(n=18) after previous ELCS, and 0.6%(n=9) after prior VD maintaining an intact perineum, compared with 6%(n=1193) in the control primiparous group of women. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated prior FOVD+EmCS and ELCS were associated with a statistically significant increased risk of OASIs of 180% and 110% when compared to control (odds ratio (OR): 2.80; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.35-5.78 and OR: 2.10; 95%CI: 1.27-3.48) respectively. Prior VD with intact perineum was associated with a statistically significantly reduced risk of OASIs (OR: 0.09; 95%CI: 0.04-0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Previous FOVD+EmCS and ELCS were associated with increased risk of OASIs in subsequent vaginal delivery compared to control, whilst previous VD with intact perineum was associated with decreased risk

Comparison between the Valsalva maneuver and intraoperative traction measurements in pelvic organ prolapse assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) between the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system with Valsalva maneuver and intraoperative measurement with mechanical traction. METHODS: A prospective observational study included 100 women with POP attending a tertiary urogynecology clinic in the UK and undergoing vaginal prolapse surgical procedures between October 2011 and October 2014. The women were examined in the clinic using POP-Q with the Valsalva maneuver and in the operating theater under general anesthesia with mechanical traction. The two sets of measurements were compared. RESULTS: All POP-Q measurements obtained with traction demonstrated significantly higher descent as compared with those measured by Valsalva maneuver (mean differences: Aa 0.64 cm; Ap 1.32 cm; Ba 0.96 cm; Bp 1.34 cm; C 3.57 cm; D 3.40 cm; all P<0.001). The perineal body and total vaginal lengths did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Measurements of six POP-Q points obtained with traction showed a higher grade of POP than those assessed with Valsalva maneuver. On this basis, surgeons might decide on the extent of surgical procedure after examination under anesthesia; however, preoperative patient counselling would be essential to obtain consent for this approach. The clinical significance of the findings requires further evaluation

3D-Volume Rendering of the Pelvis with Emphasis on Paraurethral Structures Based on MRI Scans and Comparisons between 3D Slicer and OsiriX®.

The feasibility of rendering three dimensional (3D) pelvic models of vaginal, urethral and paraurethral lesions from 2D MRI has been demonstrated previously. To quantitatively compare 3D models using two different image processing applications: 3D Slicer and OsiriX. Secondary analysis and processing of five MRI scan based image sets from female patients aged 29-43 years old with vaginal or paraurethral lesions. Cross sectional image sets were used to create 3D models of the pelvic structures with 3D Slicer and OsiriX image processing applications. The linear dimensions of the models created using the two different methods were compared using Bland-Altman plots. The comparisons demonstrated good agreement between measurements from the two applications. The two data sets obtained from different image processing methods demonstrated good agreement. Both 3D Slicer and OsiriX can be used interchangeably and produce almost similar results. The clinical role of this investigation modality remains to be further evaluated

Quality assessment of outcome reporting, publication characteristics and overall methodological quality in trials on synthetic mesh procedures for the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse for development of core outcome sets.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Variations in outcome measures and reporting of outcomes in trials on surgery for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) using synthetic mesh have been evaluated and reported. However, the quality of outcome reporting, methodology of trials and their publication parameters are important considerations in the process of development of Core Outcome Sets. We aimed to evaluate these characteristics in randomized controlled trials on surgery for POP using mesh. METHODS: Secondary analysis of randomized controlled trials on surgical treatments using synthetic mesh for POP previously included in a systematic review developing an inventory of reported outcomes and outcome measures. The methodological quality was investigated with the modified Jadad criteria. Outcome reporting quality was evaluated with the MOMENT criteria. Publication parameters included publishing journal, impact factor and year of publication. RESULTS: Of the 71 previously reviewed studies published from 2000 to 2017, the mean JADAD score was 3.59 and the mean MOMENT score was 4.63. Quality of outcomes (MOMENT) was related to methodological quality (JADAD) (rho = 0.662; p = 0.000) and to year of publication (rho = 0.262; p = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality and outcome reporting quality appear correlated. However, publication characteristics do not have strong associations with the methodological quality of the studies. Evaluation of the quality of outcomes, methodology and publication characteristics are all an indispensable part of a staged process for the development of Core Outcome and Outcome Measure Sets

A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set

INTRODUCTION: We assessed outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse and explored the relationships between outcome reporting quality with journal impact factor, year of publication, and methodological quality. METHODS: We searched the bibliographical databases from inception to October 2017. Two researchers independently selected studies and assessed study characteristics, methodological quality (Jadad criteria; range 1-5), and outcome reporting quality Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) criteria; range 1-6], and extracted relevant data. We used a multivariate linear regression to assess associations between outcome reporting quality and other variables. RESULTS: Eighty publications reporting data from 10,924 participants were included. Seventeen different surgical interventions were evaluated. One hundred different outcomes and 112 outcome measures were reported. Outcomes were inconsistently reported across trials; for example, 43 trials reported anatomical treatment success rates (12 outcome measures), 25 trials reported quality of life (15 outcome measures) and eight trials reported postoperative pain (seven outcome measures). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a relationship between outcome reporting quality with methodological quality (β = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (β = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (β = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (β = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (β = -0.013; P = 0.918). CONCLUSIONS: Anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse trials report many different outcomes and outcome measures and often neglect to report important safety outcomes. Developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set will help address these issues

A systematic review of non-invasive modalities used to identify women with anal incontinence symptoms after childbirth

© 2018, The International Urogynecological Association. Introduction and hypothesis: Anal incontinence following childbirth is prevalent and has a significant impact upon quality of life (QoL). Currently, there is no standard assessment for women after childbirth to identify these symptoms. This systematic review aimed to identify non-invasive modalities used to identify women with anal incontinence following childbirth and assess response and reporting rates of anal incontinence for these modalities. Methods: Ovid Medline, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Collaboration, EMBASE and Web of Science databases were searched for studies using non-invasive modalities published from January 1966 to May 2018 to identify women with anal incontinence following childbirth. Study data including type of modality, response rates and reported prevalence of anal incontinence were extracted and critically appraised. Results: One hundred and nine studies were included from 1602 screened articles. Three types of non-invasive modalities were identified: validated questionnaires/symptom scales (n = 36 studies using 15 different instruments), non-validated questionnaires (n = 50 studies) and patient interviews (n = 23 studies). Mean response rates were 92% up to 6 weeks after childbirth. Non-personalised assessment modalities (validated and non-validated questionnaires) were associated with reporting of higher rates of anal incontinence compared with patient interview at all periods of follow-up after childbirth, which was statistically significant between 6 weeks and 1 year after childbirth (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This systematic review confirms that questionnaires can be used effectively after childbirth to identify women with anal incontinence. Given the methodological limitations associated with non-validated questionnaires, assessing all women following childbirth for pelvic-floor symptomatology, including anal incontinence, using validated questionnaires should be considered

A systematic review of outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse: a call to action to develop a core outcome set

Introduction We assessed outcome and outcome-measure reporting in randomised controlled trials evaluating surgical interventions for anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse and explored the relationships between outcome reporting quality with journal impact factor, year of publication, and methodological quality. Methods We searched the bibliographical databases from inception to October 2017. Two researchers independently selected studies and assessed study characteristics, methodological quality (Jadad criteria; range 1–5), and outcome reporting quality Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Cleft Palate (MOMENT) criteria; range 1–6], and extracted relevant data. We used a multivariate linear regression to assess associations between outcome reporting quality and other variables. Results Eighty publications reporting data from 10,924 participants were included. Seventeen different surgical interventions were evaluated. One hundred different outcomes and 112 outcome measures were reported. Outcomes were inconsistently reported across trials; for example, 43 trials reported anatomical treatment success rates (12 outcome measures), 25 trials reported quality of life (15 outcome measures) and eight trials reported postoperative pain (seven outcome measures). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated a relationship between outcome reporting quality with methodological quality (β = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (β = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (β = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (β = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (β = −0.013; P = 0.918). Conclusions Anterior-compartment vaginal prolapse trials report many different outcomes and outcome measures and often neglect to report important safety outcomes. Developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set will help address these issues.</p

Perioperative changes in superficial pelvic organ prolapse quantification system measurements after prolapse surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the values of perineal body (PB) and genital hiatus (GH) before and after posterior repair. We also evaluated the introital surface area (ISA)-a sum of transverse and longitudinal GH measurements. METHODS: This secondary analysis of a prospective case series included 94 women undergoing posterior vaginal prolapse surgery at a consultant urogynecology clinic between October 3, 2011, and October 2, 2014. Patients were examined in clinic using the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system with Valsalva maneuver, and in theatre pre- and postoperatively with traction. RESULTS: Immediately postoperatively, a statistically significant change (all P<0.001) was noted for GH (mean difference -0.59 cm), PB (-0.56 cm), and ISA (-0.87 cm) compared with preoperative measurement. This effect was maintained for GH (-0.42 cm) and PB (-0.40 cm) at 2 months' follow-up (both P<0.001), and for PB alone (-0.43 cm; P=0.04) at 8 months. ISA had a moderate correlation with GH (r=0.55). CONCLUSIONS: Posterior repair significantly improved PB length at months 2 and 8, and GH length at month 2. ISA did not correlate with prolapse stage. Changes in GH were not maintained beyond postoperative month 2

A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in randomized trials evaluating surgical interventions for posterior vaginal prolapse to aid development of a core outcome set.

BACKGROUND: Recent systematic reviews have demonstrated wide variations on outcome measure selection and outcome reporting in trials on surgical treatments for anterior, apical and mesh prolapse surgery. A systematic review of reported outcomes and outcome measures in posterior compartment vaginal prolapse interventions is highly warranted in the process of developing core outcome sets. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcome and outcome measures reporting in posterior prolapse surgical trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of different surgical interventions for posterior compartment vaginal prolapse. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers independently assessed studies for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality, and extracted relevant data. Methodological quality, outcome reporting quality and publication characteristics were evaluated. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-seven interventional and four follow-up trials were included. Seventeen studies enrolled patients with posterior compartment surgery as the sole procedure and 14 with multicompartment procedures. Eighty-three reported outcomes and 45 outcome measures were identified. The most frequently reported outcomes were blood loss (20 studies, 74%), pain (18 studies, 66%) and infection (16 studies, 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variations in reported outcomes and outcome measures were found. Until a core outcome set is established, we propose an interim core outcome set that could include the three most commonly reported outcomes of the following domains: hospitalization; intraoperative, postoperative urinary, gastrointestinal, vaginal and sexual outcomes; clinical effectiveness. PROSPERO: CRD42017062456