title: Defining success after surgery for pelvic organ prolapse.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To describe pelvic organ prolapse surgical success rates using a variety of definitions with differing requirements for anatomic, symptomatic, or re-treatment outcomes.
  
  
  METHODS
  Eighteen different surgical success definitions were evaluated in participants who underwent abdominal sacrocolpopexy within the Colpopexy and Urinary Reduction Efforts trial. The participants' assessments of overall improvement and rating of treatment success were compared between surgical success and failure for each of the definitions studied. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to identify significant differences in outcomes between success and failure.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Treatment success varied widely depending on definition used (19.2-97.2%). Approximately 71% of the participants considered their surgery "very successful," and 85.2% considered themselves "much better" than before surgery. Definitions of success requiring all anatomic support to be proximal to the hymen had the lowest treatment success (19.2-57.6%). Approximately 94% achieved surgical success when it was defined as the absence of prolapse beyond the hymen. Subjective cure (absence of bulge symptoms) occurred in 92.1% while absence of re-treatment occurred in 97.2% of participants. Subjective cure was associated with significant improvements in the patient's assessment of both treatment success and overall improvement, more so than any other definition considered (P<.001 and <.001, respectively). Similarly, the greatest difference in symptom burden and health-related quality of life as measured by the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Distress Inventory and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Impact Questionnaire scores between treatment successes and failures was noted when success was defined as subjective cure (P<.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The definition of success substantially affects treatment success rates after pelvic organ prolapse surgery. The absence of vaginal bulge symptoms postoperatively has a significant relationship with a patient's assessment of overall improvement, while anatomic success alone does not.
  
  
  METHODS
  II.
authors.affiliation: From the Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; Departments of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Urology, Loyola University Chicago, Illinois; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama-Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas-Southwestern, Dallas, Texas; Data Coordinating Center, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
authors.forename: Matthew D
authors.initials: MD
authors.lastname: Barber
authors.forename: Linda
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Brubaker
authors.forename: Ingrid
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Nygaard
authors.forename: Thomas L
authors.initials: TL
authors.lastname: Wheeler
authors.forename: Joeseph
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Schaffer
authors.forename: Zhen
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Chen
authors.forename: Cathie
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Spino
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D017773:Pelvic Floor; D011788:Quality of Life; D019233:Retreatment; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D014596:Uterine Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*; D014782:Visceral Prolapse / Q000601:surgery*
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Oct;106(4):759-66
references.pmid: 16199633
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;185(6):1388-95
references.pmid: 11744914
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Jul;193(1):103-13
references.pmid: 16021067
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Aug;189(2):372-7; discussion 377-9
references.pmid: 14520198
references.citation: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005 May-Jun;16(3):176-81; discussion 181
references.pmid: 15875234
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Mar;192(3):795-806
references.pmid: 15746674
references.citation: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2001;12(3):178-86
references.pmid: 11451006
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;185(6):1332-7; discussion 1337-8
references.pmid: 11744905
references.citation: BJOG. 2006 Jun;113(6):700-12
references.pmid: 16709214
references.citation: Contemp Clin Trials. 2009 Mar;30(2):178-89
references.pmid: 19130903
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Dec;183(6):1402-10; discussion 1410-1
references.pmid: 11120503
references.citation: BJOG. 2002 Oct;109(10):1081-8
references.pmid: 12387459
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 2003 Oct;24(5):629-42
references.pmid: 14500059
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jan;190(1):20-6
references.pmid: 14749629
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Feb;180(2 Pt 1):299-305
references.pmid: 9988790
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Oct;104(4):805-23
references.pmid: 15458906
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004 Oct 18;(4):CD004014
references.pmid: 15495076
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Dec;175(6):1418-21; discussion 1421-2
references.pmid: 8987919
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Dec;185(6):1299-304; discussion 1304-6
references.pmid: 11744900
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Dec;195(6):1762-71
references.pmid: 17132479
references.citation: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Sep;48(3):648-61
references.pmid: 16012232
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;175(1):10-7
references.pmid: 8694033
references.citation: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2005 May-Jun;16(3):203-9; discussion 209
references.pmid: 15875236
references.citation: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Dec;175(6):1423-30; discussion 1430-1
references.pmid: 8987920
references.citation: Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Aug;110(2 Pt 2):455-62
references.pmid: 17666627
references.citation: Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1972 Dec;15(4):1048-54
references.pmid: 4649139
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2006 Apr 13;354(15):1557-66
references.pmid: 16611949