Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Preoperative quality of life questionnaires are an adequate tool to select women with genital prolapse for laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: No clear consensus exists on the selection of patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP) for surgery. There is a need to preoperatively identify candidates who will benefit from surgery as there is no strict correlation between POP anatomical abnormalities and changes in symptoms and quality of life (QOL) after surgical treatment. Therefore, our objectives were to evaluate the changes in QOL after laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy (LSC) for POP using validated questionnaires and to assess their relevance in selecting women for surgery.

METHODS: This was a prospective study of 48 women with advanced stages of POP treated by LSC from March 2005 to January 2015. We developed a recursive partitioning model from QOL PFDI-20 and PFIQ-7 questionnaire scores to determine a preoperative cut-off score for predicting improvement after surgery. The model was then validated in 84 consecutive women.

RESULTS: Optimal anatomical results were obtained in 129 of the 132 women (97.7%). Both questionnaires revealed a significant improvement after LSC (p < 0.01). The probability of improvement after surgery was 0% in women with a preoperative PFIQ-7 score of <45.25, and 84% in women with a PFIQ-7 score of ≥45.25. The probability of improvement after surgery was 0% in women with a preoperative PFDI-20 score of <52.15, 88.2% in those with a PFDI-20 score of ≥ 98.45, and 42.9% in those with a PFDI-20 score between 52.15 and 98.45. In the validation set, the discriminatory accuracies of the model were 0.96 (95% CI 0.925-0.998) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.64-0.85) for the PFIQ-7 and PFDI-20 questionnaires, respectively. The performance was accurate with a significant difference between observed outcome frequencies and predicted probabilities (p = 1).

CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the use QOL questionnaires to select women for LSC.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app