Evidence Hub

The Association Between Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Pelvic Pain and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery Using Transvaginal Mesh: A Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Multicenter Observational Cohort Trial

B. Liedl, K. Goeschen, N. Grigoryan, S. Sutherland, A. Yassouridis, M. Witczak, J. Roovers

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2020

281 participants · 17 citations

Abstract

Background: The aims of the study were to examine the type, severity and prevalence of pain in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) before and after pelvic floor reconstructive surgery, and to evaluate the effect of POP reconstruction over a period of 2 years. Methods: The study data were collected in a past multicenter prospective study (Propel-Study; Clinical Trials.Cov. Identifier: NCT00638235), where a total of 281 women with stage 2-4 symptomatic POP underwent prolapse repair using the transvaginal, single-incision “Elevate” technique for anterior/apical and posterior/apical prolapse. The degree of POP repair during a follow-up of 2 years was the primary endpoint of the study and has already evaluated previously. In the Propel trial subjective assessments of presumable POP symptoms before and 6, 12 and 24 months after surgery were registered too utilizing the pelvic floor disorder inventory (PFDI) questionnaire. The investigation of all or specific domains of PFDI symptoms were declared as secondary objectives of that study. The present treatise is concentrated on the evaluation of the PFDI pain symptoms consisting of six questions for describing different types of pain. Results: Preoperatively, 67% of all POP patients reported moderate-to-severe pain, mainly of visceral character. Pelvic floor reconstructive surgery resulted in significant cure or improvement in all pain types, intensities and locations, and these improvements were stable over 2 years. The largest…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 281 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free