TY - JOUR
T1 - Current use of pelvic organ prolapse quantification by AUGS and ICS members
AU - Pham, Thythy
AU - Burgart, Alyssa
AU - Kenton, Kimberly
AU - Mueller, Elizabeth R.
AU - Brubaker, Linda
PY - 2011/1/1
Y1 - 2011/1/1
N2 - Objective: To determine the current use of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) by members of the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) and the International Continence Society (ICS). Methods: Surgically active members of AUGS and ICS completed a Web-based questionnaire about their use of the POP-Q and included queries regarding respondent's clinical training, surgical experience, and practice setting. Users of POP-Q described their POP-Q use including patient's position, tools used to measure or assist with exposure, use of strain, and bladder volume. Strengths and weaknesses of the POP-Q system were also assessed. Results: The 308 respondents had a median of 8 years (range, 0Y35 years) of independent performance of POP surgery. Most were from the United States (70%), in a shared practice (64%), with at least 2 years of fellowship training (61%), and had trainees participating in patient care (81%). Of the respondents, 76% reported using the POP-Q; however, the technique of POP-Q varied. Of the 24% not using the POP-Q, two-thirds reported past POP-Q use. For these individuals, prolapse description was done using Baden-Walker (57%), descriptive words (38%), or other grades (7%). More than 50% of nonusers reported that the POP-Q is "too time-consuming" or that their "colleagues do not use it." Conclusions: Although most surveyed members of AUGS and ICS are using the POP-Q, we detected variability in the day-to-day practice of POP-Q use. To further advance the communication benefits of the POP-Q, a revision that provides evidence-based guidance may be a worthwhile refinement.
AB - Objective: To determine the current use of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) by members of the American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) and the International Continence Society (ICS). Methods: Surgically active members of AUGS and ICS completed a Web-based questionnaire about their use of the POP-Q and included queries regarding respondent's clinical training, surgical experience, and practice setting. Users of POP-Q described their POP-Q use including patient's position, tools used to measure or assist with exposure, use of strain, and bladder volume. Strengths and weaknesses of the POP-Q system were also assessed. Results: The 308 respondents had a median of 8 years (range, 0Y35 years) of independent performance of POP surgery. Most were from the United States (70%), in a shared practice (64%), with at least 2 years of fellowship training (61%), and had trainees participating in patient care (81%). Of the respondents, 76% reported using the POP-Q; however, the technique of POP-Q varied. Of the 24% not using the POP-Q, two-thirds reported past POP-Q use. For these individuals, prolapse description was done using Baden-Walker (57%), descriptive words (38%), or other grades (7%). More than 50% of nonusers reported that the POP-Q is "too time-consuming" or that their "colleagues do not use it." Conclusions: Although most surveyed members of AUGS and ICS are using the POP-Q, we detected variability in the day-to-day practice of POP-Q use. To further advance the communication benefits of the POP-Q, a revision that provides evidence-based guidance may be a worthwhile refinement.
KW - Pelvic organ prolapse
KW - Pelvic organ prolapse quantification
KW - POP-Q
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053049545&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80053049545&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318207c904
DO - 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318207c904
M3 - Article
C2 - 22453690
AN - SCOPUS:80053049545
VL - 17
SP - 67
EP - 69
JO - Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery
JF - Journal of Pelvic Medicine and Surgery
SN - 2151-8378
IS - 2
ER -