Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: It is not known whether the measurements of pelvic organ assessment under anesthesia accurately estimate prolapse severity. We compared Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) measurements in the office to exams under anesthesia. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients undergoing prolapse surgery between February 2020 and July 2020. POP-Qs at rest and with Valsalva were performed at pre- and postoperative visits. POP-Q under anesthesia was performed, without traction, at the start of case (pre-surgical), following apical suspension, and at the end of case (post-surgical). Primary outcome was change in POP-Q between the office and operating room. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, additional patients were recruited to maintain the follow-up time frame. RESULTS: Out of 66 patients, 63 underwent surgery and 33 had postoperative exams within 6 weeks. Mean age was 61.3 ± 11.9 years, and mean BMI was 28.4 ± 6.5 kg/m(2). Preoperative Aa, Ba, C, Ap, Bp, and D with Valsalva had greater descent than pre-surgical measurements. However, preoperative Gh with Valsalva (4.1 ± 1.3 cm) was not different from pre-surgical Gh (4.0 ± 1.0 cm) (P = 0.60). Postoperative Aa, Ba, Ap, Bp, and D were not different from post-surgical measurements. In contrast, postoperative Gh at rest (2.3 ± 0.7 cm) and with Valsalva (2.4 ± 0.8 cm) were both narrower than post-surgical Gh (2.8 ± 0.6 cm) (P < 0.05). Gh was also narrowed after apical suspension (3.6 ± 1.0 cm, P = 0.005) prior to posterior repair. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons should rely on preoperative POP-Q for surgical decisions. Gh should be reassessed after apical suspension, and further correction should consider that Gh may be exaggerated compared to the measurement postoperatively when the patient is awake.