Digital assessment and quantification of pelvic organ prolapse (DPOP-Q): a randomised cross-over diagnostic agreement trial

[Pelvic exam in gynecology and obstetrics: Guidelines for clinical practice]

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for the pelvic clinical exam in gynecology and obstetrics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A multidisciplinary experts consensus committee of 45 experts was formed, including representatives of patients' associations and users of the health system. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any funding. The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized.

METHODS

The committee studied 40 questions within 4 fields for symptomatic or asymptomatic women (emergency conditions, gynecological consultation, gynecological diseases, obstetrics, and pregnancy). Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 27 recommendations. Among the formalized recommendations, 17 present a strong agreement, 7 a weak agreement and 3 an expert consensus agreement. Thirteen questions resulted in an absence of recommendation due to lack of evidence in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS

The need to perform clinical examination in gynecological and obstetrics patients was specified in 27 pre-defined situations based on scientific evidence. More research is required to investigate the benefit in other cases.

Getting the size right: Are clinicians ready for it?

Objectives Digital examination has many uses in obstetrics and gynaecology, including cervical assessment in labour and measuring for vaginal pessaries. Clinicians must be adequately trained to perform accurate digital assessments and use this information to make decisions. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy of a clinician’s estimate for three different measuring tasks and assess whether there was any difference in the accuracy in relation to seniority or job role. Study design Doctors and midwives were recruited from two perineal trauma training events. Estimates and measurements for three different activities were recorded: length of own index finger, length of an anal sphincter model and cervical dilatation at two different dilatations (7 cm and 9 cm) using a pocket guide cervical dilatation tool. The results were analysed for accuracy of measurements according to job role and seniority. Results A total of 369 participants took part. Only 4.6% of participants accurately (to 0.1 cm) estimated the length of their index finger (0% of midwives and 5.5% of doctors). There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) when comparing average differences between estimated and actual lengths measured for doctors and midwives for almost all measurements. When comparing doctors based on seniority there was no significant difference in the accuracy of estimated lengths. A higher percentage of midwives than doctors were accurate at both 7 cm (22% vs 16.1%) and 9 cm (30.5% vs 29.5%) dilated. Conclusion We found that accuracy was poor for both doctors and midwives when asked to estimate various measurements. We suggest that training will improve awareness of finger length and therefore improve accuracy when performing digital examinations in clinical practice.

Matrix metalloproteinase-3 gene promoter polymorphisms: A potential risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common multifactorial condition. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) are enzymes capable of breaking down various connective tissue elements. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in regulatory areas of MMP-encoding genes can alter their transcription rate, and therefore the possible effect on pelvic floor supporting structures. The insertion of an adenine (A) base in the promoter of the MMP-3 gene at position -1612/-1617 produces a sequence of six adenines (6A), whereas the other allele has five (5A). The aim of the present study was to investigate the possible association of MMP-3 gene promoter SNPs with the risk of POP. The patient group comprised 80 women with clinically significant POP [Stage II, III or IV; POP quantification (POP-Q) system]. The control group consisted of 80 females without any or important pelvic floor support defects (Stages 0 or I; POP-Q system). All the participants underwent the same preoperative evaluation. SNP detection was determined with whole blood sample DNA analysis by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in LightCycler^® PCR platforms, using the technique of sequence-specific hybridization probe-binding assays and melting temperature curve analysis. The results showed there was no statistically significant difference between 5A/5A, 5A/6A and 6A/6A MMP-3 gene promoter variants in the two study groups (P=0.4758). Therefore, MMP-3 gene promoter SNPs alone is insufficient to increase the genetic susceptibility to POP development.