What is to blame for postnatal pelvic floor dysfunction in primiparous women — Pre-pregnancy or intrapartum risk factors?

Background: The aetiology of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is still poorly understood. However childbearing is recognized as a major risk factor. Objectives: To elucidate the natural history of PFD by investigating the impact of the mode of delivery on postnatal pelvic floor dysfunction in primiparas, when PFD existing before the first pregnancy is taken into consideration. Study design: 4P-study (Prevalence and Predictors of Pelvic floor dysfunction in Primips) is a prospective cohort study, nested within the Screening for Pregnancy Endpoints (SCOPE) study set in a tertiary referral teaching hospital with 9000 deliveries annually. Established and proposed risk factors for urinary, fecal, prolapse and sexual dysfunction and the severity of symptoms for each of these outcomes were assessed using the Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire in 1482 nulliparous women, who each completed the questionnaire in early pregnancy. Of these, 1060 (72%) repeated the questionnaire 12 months postpartum. Outcomes were analyzed using multivariate ordinal logistic regression. Results: Significant (p < 0.05) risk factors for postpartum PFD were pre-pregnancy presence of similar symptoms Odds Ratio (OR) (5.0–30.0), smoking (OR 2.2–4.6), recurrent UTI (OR 2.2–17.3), high hip circumference (OR1.4–1.6), vigorous exercising (OR 3.1–17.9), induction of labor (OR 1.5–2.3), forceps delivery (OR 1.8–8.8), and 3rd degree perineal tear (OR 2.4–2.7). Cesarean section was associated with a lower risk of stress urinary incontinence (OR 0.3–0.5). Other common pre-pregnancy significant (p < 0.05) risk factors for various PFD types prior to the first pregnancy were: diagnosed depression – (OR 1.6–2.1), high BMI (OR 3.1), strenuous exercising (OR 1.3–2.2), recurrent UTI (OR 1.5–2.5) and lower educational achievement (OR 1.5–1.6). Conclusions: Pre-pregnancy PFD was mainly associated with modifiable risk factors such as smoking and exercising. The main risk factor for postpartum PFD was the presence of similar symptoms prior to pregnancy, followed by anthropometric and intrapartum factors. Hip circumference seems to be a better predictor of PFD compared to BMI. When pre-pregnancy PFD was included in the analysis, Cesarean section was protective only for stress urinary incontinence, while delivery by forceps increased the risk of prolapse

The impact of first pregnancy and delivery on pelvic floor dysfunction

Background: The first childbirth has the greatest impact on a woman’s pelvic floor when major changes occur. The aim of this study was to comprehensively describe pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) in young nulliparous women, and its correlation with postnatal pathology. Methods: A prospective study was performed at Cork University Maternity Hospital, Ireland. Initially 1484 nulliparous women completed the validated Australian Pelvic Floor Questionnaire at 15 weeks’ gestation and repeatedly at one year postnatally (N=872). In the second phase, at least one year postnatally, 202 participants without subsequent pregnancies attended the clinical follow up which included: pelvic organ prolapse quantification, a 3D-Transperineal ultrasound scan and collagen level assessment. Results: A high pre-pregnancy prevalence of various types of PFD was detected, which in the majority of cases persisted postnatally and included multiple types of PFD. The first birth had a negative impact on severity of pre-pregnancy symptoms in <15% of cases. Apart from prolapse, vaginal delivery, including instrumental delivery did not increase the risk of PFD symptoms, where as Caesarean section was protective for all types of PFD. The first birth had a bigger impact on pre-existing symptoms of overactive bladder compared to stress urinary incontinence. Pelvic organ prolapse is extremely prevalent in young primiparous women, however usually it is low grade and asymptomatic. Congenital factors and high collagen type III levels play an important role in the aetiology of pelvic organs prolapse. Levator ani trauma is present in one in three women after the first pregnancy and delivery. Conclusion: The main damage to the pelvic floor most likely occurs due to an undiagnosed congenital intrinsic weakness of the pelvic floor structures. PFD is highly associated with first childbirth, however it seems that pregnancy and delivery are contributing factors only which unmask the congenital intrinsic weakness of the pelvic floor support

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 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

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. 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. 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 (beta = 0.412; P = 0.018). No relationship was demonstrated between outcome reporting quality with impact factor (beta = 0.078; P = 0.306), year of publication (beta = 0.149; P = 0.295), study size (beta = 0.008; P = 0.961) and commercial funding (beta = -0.013; P = 0.918). 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 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

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

Abstract 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. </jats:sec

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