Obstetrics & Gynecology Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Obstetrics & Gynecology 1998;91:961-964
© 1998 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Swift, S.
Right arrow Articles by Herring, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Swift, S.
Right arrow Articles by Herring, M

Articles

Comparison of pelvic organ prolapse in the dorsal lithotomy compared with the standing position

SE Swift and M Herring

OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a significant difference in the degree of pelvic organ prolapse assigned during examination in the standing position compared with the dorsal lithotomy position with the patient performing maximal Valsalva maneuver. METHODS: Fifty-one women with symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse were examined in both the dorsal lithotomy position, while performing maximal Valsalva, and in the standing position at the same visit by one of two examiners. Nine site-specific measures and summary stages were recorded, as outlined by the International Continence Society's classification system for pelvic organ prolapse. The data were analyzed by Wilcoxon signed-rank test and correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The mean age was 52 +/- 15 years. Excellent correlation was noted between all six points representing the vaginal prolapse. The R values for point Aa were 0.97, Ba 0.96, C 0.98, Ap 0.97, Bp 0.96, and D 0.97. The total vaginal length, perineal body, and genital hiatus measurements were performed in the dorsal lithotomy position with the patient at rest and were not repeated. The stages were identical in 48 of 51 patients. The average stage in the dorsal lithotomy position was 2.3 and in the standing position, 2.3. There was no statistically significant difference between the stage or any of the measured points in the dorsal lithotomy and standing examinations. CONCLUSION: The degree of pelvic organ prolapse can be assessed adequately in the dorsal lithotomy position with the patient performing maximal Valsalva. It is not necessary to routinely repeat the examination in the standing position.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
W A. Silva, S. Kleeman, J. Segal, R. Pauls, S. E. Woods, and M. M. Karram
Effects of a Full Bladder and Patient Positioning on Pelvic Organ Prolapse Assessment
Obstet. Gynecol., July 1, 2004; 104(1): 37 - 41.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
E. Cortes, W. M. N. Reid, K. Singh, and L. Berger
Clinical Examination and Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Vaginal Vault Prolapse
Obstet. Gynecol., January 1, 2004; 103(1): 41 - 46.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Obstet GynecolHome page
M. D. BARBER, A. R. LAMBERS, A. G. VISCO, and R. C. BUMP
Effect of Patient Position on Clinical Evaluation of Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Obstet. Gynecol., July 1, 2000; 96(1): 18 - 22.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.