Responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women undergoing vaginal surgery and pessary treatment for pelvic organ prolapse.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE:

This study was undertaken to evaluate the responsiveness of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI) and Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ) in women with pelvic organ prolapse undergoing surgical and nonsurgical management.

STUDY DESIGN:

The responsiveness of the prolapse, urinary and colorectal scales of the PFDI and PFIQ were assessed in 2 independent populations: (1) 42 women with stage II or greater prolapse enrolled in an ongoing multicenter randomized trial comparing 2 different pessaries (Pessary group) and (2) 64 women with stage III or greater prolapse who underwent vaginal reconstructive surgery (Surgery group). All subjects completed the PFDI and PFIQ at baseline and again either 3 months (Pessary group) or 6 months (Surgery group) after initiation of treatment. Responsiveness was assessed with standardized response mean (SRM), effect size (ES), and the paired t test.

RESULTS:

In the Pessary group, there was a significant improvement in the prolapse and urinary scales of the PFDI, with each demonstrating moderate responsiveness (prolapse: SRM 0.69, ES 0.68; urinary: SRM 0.57, ES: 0.50, P < .001 for each). The colorectal scale of the PFDI and each of the 3 scales of the PFIQ demonstrated no significant change in scores with pessary use. In the Surgery group, there was a significant improvement in the prolapse, urinary, and colorectal scales of both the PFDI and PFIQ (P < .01 for each). The prolapse and urinary scales of the PFDI demonstrated excellent responsiveness with SRM and ES 1.20 or greater for the prolapse scale and equal to1.05 for the urinary scales. The colorectal scale of the PFDI and the urinary and prolapse scales of the PFIQ demonstrated moderate responsiveness (SRM 0.61-0.70 and ES 0.56-0.60) after surgery. Subjects who had a recurrence of their prolapse develop after surgery (6%) had significantly less improvement in the prolapse scale of the PFDI than those who did not. After controlling for preoperative prolapse stage and baseline quality of life scores, subjects in the Surgery group had significantly greater improvement in each of the scales of the PFDI and the prolapse and urinary scales of the PFIQ than did the Pessary group (P < .05 for each).

CONCLUSION:

The PFDI and PFIQ are responsive to change in women undergoing surgical and nonsurgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. The PFDI is more responsive than the PFIQ.

• Authors: Matthew D Barber, Mark D Walters, Geoffrey W Cundiff, PESSRI Trial Group
• Journal: American journal of obstetrics and gynecology (Am J Obstet Gynecol) Vol. 194 Issue 5 Pg. 1492-8 (May 2006) ISSN: 1097-6868 [Electronic] United States
• PMID: 16647933 (Publication Type: Comparative Study, Evaluation Study, Journal Article)

Topics

• Aged
• Female
• Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
• Humans
• Middle Aged
• Pelvic Floor (physiopathology)
• Pessaries
• Psychometrics (methods)
• Quality of Life
• Severity of Illness Index
• Sickness Impact Profile
• Surveys and Questionnaires (standards)
• Uterine Prolapse (physiopathology, surgery, therapy)
• Vagina (surgery)