Assessment of the impact of urogenital prolapse on sexual dysfunction.

Sexual dysfunction is one of the symptoms that motivates women to seek medical help in the management of urogenital prolapse. Conservative or surgical interventions may be offered to treat the prolapse but the question remains as to whether treatment restores sexual function (SF). This article briefly discusses the assessment of SF in women with a urogenital prolapse and reviews the effect of therapeutic interventions on SF.

Digital assessment and quantification of pelvic organ prolapse (DPOP-Q): a randomised cross-over diagnostic agreement trial.

INTRODUCTION: Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system, measured in centimetres using a ruler (e.g. POPstix®), is recommended to quantify prolapse severity. POPstix® are costly (US $1/ruler). Home-made devices are used instead, but these have not been shown to be reproducible. HYPOTHESIS: Digitally assessed POP-Q (DPOP-Q) is as reliable, reproducible and acceptable as POP-Q assessed using POPstix®. METHODS: In this randomised crossover diagnostic agreement trial, each assessor measured the index finger of their dominant hand using a ruler. At visit one, patients were randomised to either POPstix® POP-Q assessment in a modified lithotomy position or DPOP-Q in both modified a lithotomy and a standing position. After the first clinician conducted this assessment, a second blinded clinician then carried out the remaining assessment on the same patient. For each examination, duration was recorded, along with a patient-completed discomfort score. Twenty-five women were invited for visit two, at which DPOP-Q was recorded by the same clinician who undertook DPOP-Q at the first visit. This allowed evaluation of inter- and intraobserver agreement together with examination acceptability. RESULTS: One hundred and nine women were recruited [median age 55 years, parity 2, body mass index (BMI) 27.1]. Of the 25 patients invited, 23 returned for visit two. DPOP-Q had high interobserver reliability [κ = 0.94, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.878-0.996] and intraobserver reliability (α = 0.96) with POPstix®. DPOP-Q was significantly quicker (p = 0.02) and less uncomfortable (p < 0.01) than POPstix® POP-Q. CONCLUSION: DPOP-Q is reliable, acceptable and cost effective.

Is there a discrepancy between patient and physician quality of life assessment?

AIMS: Quality of Life (QoL) assessment remains integral in the investigation of women with lower urinary tract dysfunction. Previous work suggests that physicians tend to underestimate patients' symptoms and the bother that they cause. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between physician and patient assessed QoL using the Kings Health Questionnaire (KHQ). METHODS: Patients complaining of troublesome lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) were recruited from a tertiary referral urodynamic clinic. Prior to their clinic appointment they were sent a KHQ, which was completed before attending. After taking a detailed urogynecological history, a second KHQ was filled in by the physician, blinded to the patient responses, on the basis of their impression of the symptoms elicited during the interview. These data were analyzed by an independent statistician. Concordance between patient and physician assessment for individual questions was assessed using weighted kappa analysis. QoL scores were compared using Wilcoxons signed rank test. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were recruited over a period of 5 months. Overall, the weighted kappa showed relatively poor concordance between the patient and physician responses; mean kappa: 0.33 (range 0.18-0.57). The physician underestimated QoL score in 4/9 domains by a mean of 5.5% and overestimated QoL score in 5/9 domains by a mean of 6.9%. In particular, physicians underestimated the impact of LUTS on social limitations and emotions (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that physicians often differ from patients in the assessment of QoL. This is most likely due to a difference in patient-physician perception of "significant" LUTS and clearly demonstrates the importance of patient evaluated QoL in routine clinical assessment.