Defining normal apical vaginal support: a relook at the POSST study
- 51 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
The purpose of this study is to reanalyze data from the original 2005 Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST) data set to define normal values for apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) points C and D and total vaginal length (TVL) in an asymptomatic population of women.
In this retrospective observational data-set review, patient were >18 years presenting for annual gynecologic exams to six centers in the United States. Data included demographics, questions about prolapse symptoms, and POP-Q points. Means and standard deviations were determined for each POP-Q point in the total population.
The data set comprised 1011 women; 59 were excluded because they met criteria for having POP or were missing data. This left 948 for study. Mean age of our study population was 42 ± 14 years, and 45.6% were white, 25.1% black, and 25.2% Hispanic. One hundred fifty-six had a prior hysterectomy. Mean values with standard deviations (SD) for POP-Q values are as following: point C (vaginal cuff) −7.3 ± 1.5 cm, point C (cervix) −5.9 ± 1.5, point D −8.7 cm ± 1.5 cm, TVL (no hysterectomy) 9.8 cm ± 1.3 cm, and TVL (hysterectomy) 8.9 cm ± 1.5 cm.
This data suggests normal values for POP-Q apical points in a population of patient with annual gynecological exams.
KeywordsApical support Pelvic organ prolapse support
We would like to extend recognition to the Original POSST study site principal Investigators for their work in collecting and establishing this data set; Patrick Woodman, Deidre Bland, Joseph Schaffer, Michael Valley, Margie Kahn.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
- 3.Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An international Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Meister MR, Sutcliffe S, Lowder JL. Definitions of apical vaginal support loss: a systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.078.
- 5.Swift S, Woodman P, O’Boyle A, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):795–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.10.602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):655–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3003-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Trowbridge ER, Fultz NH, Patel DA, DeLancey JO, Fenner DE. Distribution of pelvic organ support measures in a population-based sample of middle-aged, community-dwelling African American and white women in southeastern Michigan. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):548 e541–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar