Validation of the Lithuanian version of the Prolapse Quality-of-Life questionnaire.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We aimed to translate and validate the Lithuanian version of the Prolapse Quality-of-Life (P-QOL) questionnaire. METHODS: The P-QOL questionnaire was translated into Lithuanian and administered to women recruited from a gynaecology outpatient clinic at a tertiary referral centre. The scores of the final version were compared in symptomatic (n = 137) and asymptomatic (n = 137) women and with findings on vaginal examination using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system. The reliability was assessed by calculating Cronbach's alpha and by performing a test-retest analysis. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in median score for each P-QOL domain between symptomatic and asymptomatic women (p < 0.001). P-QOL scores correlated significantly with the stage of urogenital prolapse in most domains. High internal consistency was shown in all domains with a Cronbach's alpha range of 0.775 to 0.958, except for the "social limitations" domain, which was shown to be acceptable (0.647). Test-retest reliability was also high in all domains (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The Lithuanian version of the P-QOL questionnaire has proven to be a valid, reliable and easily comprehensible instrument for assessing symptom severity and impact on the quality of life of Lithuanian-speaking women with urogenital prolapse.

Quality of Life after Treatment for Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Real-World Study: Recommendations, Vaginal Pessary, and Surgery.

Background and Objectives: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common condition in women, with its prevalence increasing with age, and can significantly impact the quality of life (QOL) of many individuals. The objective of this study was to assess the overall improvement, quality of life, and continuation of primary treatment for POP over a 24-month period in a real-world setting. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective, observational, follow-up study of women with symptomatic POP who, as a primary treatment, opted for recommendations (lifestyle changes and pelvic floor muscle training), pessary therapy, or surgery. The primary outcome measure was a subjective improvement at the 24-month follow-up, measured with the Patient Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scale. Secondary outcome measures were the continuation rate of the primary treatment method, reason for discontinuation, and the quality of life evaluated with the P-QoL questionnaire. Results: We included 137 women, with 45 women (32.8%) in the recommendations group, 39 (28.5%) in the pessary group, and 53 women (38.7%) in the surgery group. After 24 months, surgery, in comparison with pessary treatment and recommendations, resulted in significantly more women reporting a subjective improvement: 89.6%, 66.7%, and 22.9% (p < 0.001), respectively. Overall, 52% of women from the recommendations group and 36.4% from the pessary group switched to another treatment or discontinued the primary treatment within 24 months. However, women who continued the primary treatment, pessary use, and surgery showed similar subjective improvements (90.5% and 89.6%, respectively) and quality-of-life improvement. Conclusions: The chance of significant improvement was higher following surgery. However, after 24 months, both vaginal pessaries and surgery showed an important quality-of life improvement and can be proposed as primary treatment methods for pelvic organ prolapse.