English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective  To evaluate the differences between the in-office and intraoperative techniques used to evaluate pelvic organ prolapse.    Materials and Methods  A prospective study included 25 women undergoing vaginal reconstruction surgery including vaginal hysterectomy for pelvic organ prolapse. The outpatient pelvic and site-specific vaginal examination was performed in the lithotomy position with the Valsalva maneuver. Repeated intraoperative examination was performed under general anesthesia with standard mild cervical traction. The Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POPQ) was used for both measurements and staging. The values found under the two conditions were compared.    Results  The intraoperative POPQ-measurements values were significantly higher than the outpatient values for apical wall prolapse in 17/25 (68%) women and for anterior wall prolapse in 8/25 (32%) women. There was not a significant difference in the posterior wall where increase in staging was shown in 3/25 (12%) patients.    Conclusions  Clinicians and patients should be alert to the possibility that pelvic organ measurements performed under general anesthesia with mild traction may be different from preoperative evaluation.

How Accurate Is Preoperative Evaluation of Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women Undergoing Vaginal Reconstruction Surgery?