Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse : International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion
Author
Ismail, SharifDuckett, Jonathan
Rizk, Diaa
Sorinola, Olanrewaju

Kammerer-Doak, Dorothy
Contreras-Ortiz, Oscar
Al-Mandeel, Hazem
Svabik, Kamil
Parekh, Mitesh
Phillips, Christian
Affiliation
Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust; Brighton and Sussex Medical School; Medway Hospital NHS Trust; South Warwickshire University NHS Foundation Trust; et al.Publication date
2016-07-05Subject
Gynaecology
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Introduction and hypothesis: This committee opinion paper summarizes available evidence about recurrent pelvic organ prolapse (POP) to provide guidance on management. Method: A working subcommittee from the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) Research and Development Committee was formed. The literature regarding recurrent POP was reviewed and summarized by individual members of the subcommittee. Recommendations were graded according to the 2009 Oxford Levels of Evidence. The summary was reviewed by the Committee. Results: There is no agreed definition for recurrent POP and evidence in relation to its evaluation and management is limited. Conclusion: The assessment of recurrent POP should entail looking for possible reason(s) for failure, including persistent and/or new risk factors, detection of all pelvic floor defects and checking for complications of previous surgery. The management requires individual evaluation of the risks and benefits of different options and appropriate patient counseling. There is an urgent need for an agreed definition and further research into all aspects of recurrent POP. Keywords: Cost; Definition; Diagnosis; Etiology; Incidence; Pelvic organ prolapse; Prevalence; Recurrent; Treatment.Citation
Ismail S, Duckett J, Rizk D, Sorinola O, Kammerer-Doak D, Contreras-Ortiz O, Al-Mandeel H, Svabik K, Parekh M, Phillips C. Recurrent pelvic organ prolapse: International Urogynecological Association Research and Development Committee opinion. Int Urogynecol J. 2016 Nov;27(11):1619-1632. doi: 10.1007/s00192-016-3076-7. Epub 2016 Jul 5.Type
ArticlePMID
27379891Publisher
Springerae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1007/s00192-016-3076-7