J Clin Gynecol Obstet

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics, ISSN 1927-1271 print, 1927-128X online, Open Access

Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Clin Gynecol Obstet and Elmer Press Inc

Journal website https://www.jcgo.org

Original Article

Volume 9, Number 4, December 2020, pages 79-95

The Association Between Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Pelvic Pain and Pelvic Reconstructive Surgery Using Transvaginal Mesh: A Secondary Analysis of a Prospective Multicenter Observational Cohort Trial

Figure 1. Proportions of patients who showed preoperatively the IPC state (bottom row of pies) or the RPC state (lower row of pies) for each pain complaint area and who stayed on the same or passed over to the other state 6, 12 or 24 months after surgery. Obviously, patients suffering from anterior or visceral pain at baseline showed better results 6, 12 or 24 months after surgery than patients suffering from posterior pain. IPC: irrelevant pain complaint; RPC: relevant pain complaint.

**Table 1.** Baseline Prevalence of the Four Symptom Outcomes and the Combination R2 Regarding the PFDI Symptoms in Patient Groups
Preoperative pain symptoms	Total population (n = 277)	Posterior/apical (n = 135)	Anterior/apical (n = 142)	POP-Q stage 2 (n = 122)	POP-Q stage 3 or 4 (n = 150)
The pairwise superscripts “a”, “b”, “c” and “d” on the relative frequencies of certain symptoms indicate significant differences between the posterior/apical and anterior/apical groups in terms of the prevalence rates of R2 (Fisher’s exact tests, P < 0.05). PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory; POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification system.
PFDI 1 (pressure in the lower abdomen)
Symptom-free	131	47.30%	56	41.50%	75	52.80%	55	45.10%	73	48.70%
Somewhat	55	19.90%	29	21.50%	26	18.30%	24	19.70%	30	20.00%
Moderate	47	17.00%	23	17.00%	24	16.90%	20	16.40%	27	18.00%
Quite a bit	44	15.90%	27	20.00%	17	12.00%	23	18.90%	20	13.30%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	91	32.90%	50	37.00%^a	41	28.90%^a	43	35.30%	47	31.30%
Observed cases	277	100.0%	135	100.0%	142	100.0%	122	100.0%	150	100.0%
PFDI 2 (pain in the lower abdomen or genital area)
Symptom-free	167	60.30%	74	54.80%	93	65.50%	75	61.50%	90	60.00%
Somewhat	47	17.00%	23	17.00%	24	16.90%	18	14.80%	28	18.70%
Moderate	37	13.40%	25	18.50%	12	8.50%	16	13.10%	19	12.70%
Quite a bit	26	9.40%	13	9.60%	13	9.20%	13	10.70%	13	8.70%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	63	22.80%	38	28.10%^b	25	17.70%^b	29	23.80%	32	21.40%
Observed cases	277	100.0%	135	100.0%	142	100.0%	122	100.0%	150	100.0%
PFDI 3 (heaviness or dullness in the pelvic area)
Symptom-free	141	50.90%	63	46.70%	78	54.90%	62	50.80%	77	51.30%
Somewhat	61	22.00%	26	19.30%	35	24.60%	27	22.10%	33	22.00%
Moderate	39	14.10%	24	17.80%	15	10.60%	13	10.70%	25	16.70%
Quite a bit	36	13.00%	22	16.30%	14	9.90%	20	16.40%	15	10.00%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	75	27.10%	46	34.10%^c	29	20.50%^c	33	27.10%	40	26.70%
Observed cases	277	100.0%	135	100.0%	142	100.0%	122	100.0%	150	100.0%
PFDI 6 (pelvic discomfort during standing or physical exertion)
Symptom-free	107	38.60%	56	41.50%	51	35.90%	53	43.40%	51	34.00%
Somewhat	57	20.60%	23	17.00%	34	23.90%	21	17.20%	36	24.00%
Moderate	58	20.90%	29	21.50%	29	20.40%	23	18.90%	34	22.70%
Quite a bit	55	19.90%	27	20.00%	28	19.70%	25	20.50%	29	19.30%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	113	40.80%	56	41.50%	57	40.10%	48	39.40%	63	42.00%
Observed cases	277	100.0%	135	100.0%	142	100.0%	122	100.0%	150	100.0%
PFDI 7 (pain in lower back most days)
Symptom-free	126	45.50%	54	40.00%	72	50.70%	56	45.90%	68	45.30%
Somewhat	46	16.60%	23	17.00%	23	16.20%	20	16.40%	24	16.00%
Moderate	42	15.20%	24	17.80%	18	12.70%	15	12.30%	26	17.30%
Quite a bit	63	22.70%	34	25.20%	29	20.40%	31	25.40%	32	21.30%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	105	37.90%	58	43.00%^d	47	33.10%^d	46	37.70%	58	38.60%
Observed cases	277	100.0%	135	100.0%	142	100.0%	122	100.0%	150	100.0%
PFDI 46 (abdominal or lower back pain when straining for any reason)
Symptom-free	167	60.30%	71	52.60%	96	67.60%	68	55.70%	95	63.30%
Somewhat	42	15.20%	27	20.00%	15	10.60%	25	20.50%	17	11.30%
Moderate	36	13.00%	21	15.60%	15	10.60%	17	13.90%	18	12.00%
Quite a bit	32	11.60%	16	11.90%	16	11.30%	12	9.80%	20	13.30%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	68	24.60%	37	27.50%	31	21.90%	29	23.70%	38	25.30%
Observed cases	277	100.0%	135	100.0%	142	100.0%	122	100.0%	150	100.0%

Table 1. Baseline Prevalence of the Four Symptom Outcomes and the Combination R2 Regarding the PFDI Symptoms in Patient Groups

Preoperative pain symptoms

Total population (n = 277)

Posterior/apical (n = 135)

Anterior/apical (n = 142)

POP-Q stage 2 (n = 122)

POP-Q stage 3 or 4 (n = 150)

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

The pairwise superscripts “a”, “b”, “c” and “d” on the relative frequencies of certain symptoms indicate significant differences between the posterior/apical and anterior/apical groups in terms of the prevalence rates of R2 (Fisher’s exact tests, P < 0.05). PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory; POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification system.

PFDI 1 (pressure in the lower abdomen)

Symptom-free

131

47.30%

41.50%

52.80%

45.10%

48.70%

Somewhat

19.90%

21.50%

18.30%

19.70%

20.00%

Moderate

17.00%

16.90%

16.40%

18.00%

Quite a bit

15.90%

20.00%

12.00%

18.90%

13.30%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

32.90%

37.00%^a

28.90%^a

35.30%

31.30%

Observed cases

277

100.0%

135

100.0%

142

100.0%

122

100.0%

150

100.0%

PFDI 2 (pain in the lower abdomen or genital area)

Symptom-free

167

60.30%

54.80%

65.50%

61.50%

60.00%

Somewhat

17.00%

16.90%

14.80%

18.70%

Moderate

13.40%

18.50%

8.50%

13.10%

12.70%

Quite a bit

9.40%

9.60%

9.20%

10.70%

8.70%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

22.80%

28.10%^b

17.70%^b

23.80%

21.40%

Observed cases

277

100.0%

135

100.0%

142

100.0%

122

100.0%

150

100.0%

PFDI 3 (heaviness or dullness in the pelvic area)

Symptom-free

141

50.90%

46.70%

54.90%

50.80%

51.30%

Somewhat

22.00%

19.30%

24.60%

22.10%

22.00%

Moderate

14.10%

17.80%

10.60%

10.70%

16.70%

Quite a bit

13.00%

16.30%

9.90%

16.40%

10.00%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

27.10%

34.10%^c

20.50%^c

27.10%

26.70%

Observed cases

277

100.0%

135

100.0%

142

100.0%

122

100.0%

150

100.0%

PFDI 6 (pelvic discomfort during standing or physical exertion)

Symptom-free

107

38.60%

41.50%

35.90%

43.40%

34.00%

Somewhat

20.60%

17.00%

23.90%

17.20%

24.00%

Moderate

20.90%

21.50%

20.40%

18.90%

22.70%

Quite a bit

19.90%

20.00%

19.70%

20.50%

19.30%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

113

40.80%

41.50%

40.10%

39.40%

42.00%

Observed cases

277

100.0%

135

100.0%

142

100.0%

122

100.0%

150

100.0%

PFDI 7 (pain in lower back most days)

Symptom-free

126

45.50%

40.00%

50.70%

45.90%

45.30%

Somewhat

16.60%

17.00%

16.20%

16.40%

16.00%

Moderate

15.20%

17.80%

12.70%

12.30%

17.30%

Quite a bit

22.70%

25.20%

20.40%

25.40%

21.30%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

105

37.90%

43.00%^d

33.10%^d

37.70%

38.60%

Observed cases

277

100.0%

135

100.0%

142

100.0%

122

100.0%

150

100.0%

PFDI 46 (abdominal or lower back pain when straining for any reason)

Symptom-free

167

60.30%

52.60%

67.60%

55.70%

63.30%

Somewhat

15.20%

20.00%

10.60%

20.50%

11.30%

Moderate

13.00%

15.60%

10.60%

13.90%

12.00%

Quite a bit

11.60%

11.90%

11.30%

9.80%

13.30%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

24.60%

27.50%

21.90%

23.70%

25.30%

Observed cases

277

100.0%

135

100.0%

142

100.0%

122

100.0%

150

100.0%

**Table 2.** Absolute and Relative Frequencies of the IPCs and RPCs in the Anterior, Visceral, Posterior and the Whole Pain Complaint Area (All Areas) for Different Patient Samples Preoperatively
Location of pain symptoms	Prevalences of the irrelevant and relevant pain complaints in the front, visceral, back and all areas into different samples in the baseline
When considering all complaints, more than 61.30% of the female patients revealed at least one relevant pain symptom, irrespective of the affiliation sample. The area with the least frequent RPCs was the anterior area. For each considered sample, Cochran’s Q-tests followed by the McNemar tests were applied for testing differences between the three areas: anterior area (F), visceral (V) and posterior (B), in terms of the prevalence rates of RPCs, whereas differences in the prevalence rates of PRC between the “paP” and “aaP” groups as well as between the “S2P” and “S34P” groups were tested about significance for each considered area (sympotom domain) with X²-test. “+” indicates significant (marginally significant) area or group differences at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance (nominal level of significance α = 0.05). POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification system; PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory; IPC: irrelevant pain complaint; RPC: relevant pain complaint.
Anterior area (PFDI 1 and PFDI 2)
IPCs (IPC: PFDI 1 = R1 and PFDI 2 = R1)	172	62.10%	79	58.50%	93	65.50%	X²(1) = 1.43	74	60.70%	95	63.30%	X²(1) = 0.20
RPCs (RPC: PFDI 1 = R2 or PFDI 2 = R2)	105	37.90%	56	41.50%	49	34.50%	P = 0.231	48	39.30%	55	36.70%	P = 0.650
Total cases	277	100.00%	135	100.00%	142	100.00%		122	100.00%	150	100.00%
Visceral area (PFDI 3 and PFDI 6)
IPCs (IPC: PFDI 3 = R1 and PFDI 6 = R1)	148	53.40%	67	49.60%	81	57.00%	X²(1) = 1.52	69	56.60%	76	50.70%	X²(1) = 0.93
RPCs (RPC: PFDI 3 = R2 or PFDI 6 = R2)	129	46.60%	68	50.40%	61	43.00%	P = 0.216	53	43.40%	74	49.30%	P = 0.332
Total cases	277	100.00%	135	100.00%	142	100.00%		122	100,00%	150	100.00%
Posterior area (PFDI 7 and PFDI 46)
IPCs (IPC: PFDI 7 = R1 and PFDI 46 = R1)	155	56.00%	68	50.40%	87	61.30%	X²(1) = 3.33	67	54.90%	85	56.70%	X²(1) = 0.08
RPCs (RPC: PFDI 7 = R2 or PFDI 46 = R2)	122	44.00%	67	49.60%	55	38.70%	P = 0.067	55	45.10%	65	43.30%	P = 0.772
Total cases	277	100.00%	135	100.00%	142	100.00%		122	100.00%	150	100.00%
Testing global and simple differences in the occurrence of relevant complaints between regions (Cochran’s Q- and McNemar tests)	Q_{(DF = 2)} = 6.92	Q_{(DF = 2)} = 3.97	Q_{(DF = 2)} = 3.32		Q_{(DF = 2)} = 1.25	Q_{(DF = 2)} = 7.97
	P = 0.0314⁺	P = 0.137	P = 0.189		P = 0.533	P = 0.0186⁺
	F/V					F/V
All areas
IPCs (PFDI: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 46, all PFDIs = R1)	90	32.50%	35	25.90%	55	39.70%	X²(1) = 5.52	37	21.30%	51	34.00%	X²(1) = 1.41
RPCs (at least one of the PFDIs = R2)	187	67.50%	100	74.10%	87	61.30%	P = 0.018⁺	85	69.70%	99	66.00%	P = 0.519
Total cases	277	100.00%	135	100.00%	142	100.00%		122	100.00%	150	100.00%

Table 2. Absolute and Relative Frequencies of the IPCs and RPCs in the Anterior, Visceral, Posterior and the Whole Pain Complaint Area (All Areas) for Different Patient Samples Preoperatively

Location of pain symptoms

Prevalences of the irrelevant and relevant pain complaints in the front, visceral, back and all areas into different samples in the baseline

Total sample (n = 277)

Posterior/apical (n = 135)

Anterior/apical (n = 142)

X²-tests for testing posterior/apical vs. anterior/apical (P-values)

POP-Q stage 2 (n = 122)

POP-Q stage 3 or 4 (n = 150)

X²-tests for testing stage 2 vs. stage 3 or 4 (P-values)

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

When considering all complaints, more than 61.30% of the female patients revealed at least one relevant pain symptom, irrespective of the affiliation sample. The area with the least frequent RPCs was the anterior area. For each considered sample, Cochran’s Q-tests followed by the McNemar tests were applied for testing differences between the three areas: anterior area (F), visceral (V) and posterior (B), in terms of the prevalence rates of RPCs, whereas differences in the prevalence rates of PRC between the “paP” and “aaP” groups as well as between the “S2P” and “S34P” groups were tested about significance for each considered area (sympotom domain) with X²-test. “+” indicates significant (marginally significant) area or group differences at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance (nominal level of significance α = 0.05). POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification system; PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory; IPC: irrelevant pain complaint; RPC: relevant pain complaint.

Anterior area (PFDI 1 and PFDI 2)

IPCs (IPC: PFDI 1 = R1 and PFDI 2 = R1)

172

62.10%

58.50%

65.50%

X²(1) = 1.43

60.70%

63.30%

X²(1) = 0.20

RPCs (RPC: PFDI 1 = R2 or PFDI 2 = R2)

105

37.90%

41.50%

34.50%

P = 0.231

39.30%

36.70%

P = 0.650

Total cases

277

100.00%

135

100.00%

142

100.00%

122

100.00%

150

100.00%

Visceral area (PFDI 3 and PFDI 6)

IPCs (IPC: PFDI 3 = R1 and PFDI 6 = R1)

148

53.40%

49.60%

57.00%

X²(1) = 1.52

56.60%

50.70%

X²(1) = 0.93

RPCs (RPC: PFDI 3 = R2 or PFDI 6 = R2)

129

46.60%

50.40%

43.00%

P = 0.216

43.40%

49.30%

P = 0.332

Total cases

277

100.00%

135

100.00%

142

100.00%

122

100,00%

150

100.00%

Posterior area (PFDI 7 and PFDI 46)

IPCs (IPC: PFDI 7 = R1 and PFDI 46 = R1)

155

56.00%

50.40%

61.30%

X²(1) = 3.33

54.90%

56.70%

X²(1) = 0.08

RPCs (RPC: PFDI 7 = R2 or PFDI 46 = R2)

122

44.00%

49.60%

38.70%

P = 0.067

45.10%

43.30%

P = 0.772

Total cases

277

100.00%

135

100.00%

142

100.00%

122

100.00%

150

100.00%

Testing global and simple differences in the occurrence of relevant complaints between regions (Cochran’s Q- and McNemar tests)

Q_{(DF = 2)} = 6.92

Q_{(DF = 2)} = 3.97

Q_{(DF = 2)} = 3.32

Q_{(DF = 2)} = 1.25

Q_{(DF = 2)} = 7.97

P = 0.0314⁺

P = 0.137

P = 0.189

P = 0.533

P = 0.0186⁺

F/V

All areas

IPCs (PFDI: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 46, all PFDIs = R1)

32.50%

25.90%

39.70%

X²(1) = 5.52

21.30%

34.00%

X²(1) = 1.41

RPCs (at least one of the PFDIs = R2)

187

67.50%

100

74.10%

61.30%

P = 0.018⁺

69.70%

66.00%

P = 0.519

Total cases

277

100.00%

135

100.00%

142

100.00%

122

100.00%

150

100.00%

**Table 3.** Absolute and Relative Frequencies of the Four Symptom Outcomes and the Combined Outcome R2 Before and 6, 12 and 24 Months After POP Reconstruction in the Total Population
Pre- and postoperative pain symptoms (total population, n = 277)	Baseline (phase 0)	6 months after surgery (phase 1)	12 months after surgery (phase 2)	24 months after surgery (phase 3)	Cochran’s Q-tests for tesing global effects (P-values)	McNemar tests for testing simple effects (phase pairs with significant differences)
Frequencies at each postoperative stage refer to the number of patients who were observed in this stage. The global time effects on the prevalence rates of R2 and of the “symptom-free” outcome were tested for significance with Cochran’s Q-tests. Whenever significant global effects were revealed, McNemar tests were subsequently performed to test the simple effects, i.e., for identifying the phase pairs with significant differences in the investigated prevalence rates. “” (number pairs) indicates significant global effects on (phase pairs with significant differences in) the investigated prevalence rates at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance α (where α* < α (= 0.05)). POP: pelvic organ prolapse; PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory.
PFDI 1 (pressure in the lower abdomen)
Symptom-free	131	47.30%	213	82.90%	213	85.90%	163	88.10%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Somewhat	55	19.90%	23	8.90%	18	7.30%	12	6.50%
Moderate	47	17.00%	14	5.40%	9	3.60%	8	4.30%
Quite a bit	44	15.90%	7	2.70%	8	3.20%	2	1.10%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	91	32.90%	21	8.10%	17	6.80%	10	5.40%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Observed cases	277	100.00%	257	100.00%	248	100.00%	185	100.00%
PFDI 2 (pain in the lower abdomen or genital area)
Symptom-free	167	60.30%	217	84.40%	218	87.90%	171	92.40%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Somewhat	47	17.00%	18	7.00%	16	6.50%	9	4.90%
Moderate	37	13.40%	15	5.80%	8	3.20%	3	1.60%
Quite a bit	26	9.40%	7	2.70%	6	2.40%	2	1.10%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	63	22.80%	22	8.50%	14	5.60%	5	2.70%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Observed cases	277	100.00%	257	100.00%	248	100.00%	185	100.00%
PFDI 3 (heaviness or dullness in the pelvic area)
Symptom-free	141	50.90%	226	87.90%	223	89.90%	170	91.90%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Somewhat	61	22.00%	22	8.60%	13	5.20%	10	5.40%
Moderate	39	14.10%	5	1.90%	6	2.40%	3	1.60%
Quite a bit	36	13.00%	4	1.60%	6	2.40%	2	1.10%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	75	27.10%	9	3.50%	12	4.80%	5	2.70%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Observed cases	277	100.00%	257	100.00%	248	100.00%	185	100.00%
PFDI 6 (pelvic discomfort during standing or pshysically exerting)
Symptom-free	107	38.60%	218	84.80%	224	90.30%	169	91.40%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Somewhat	57	20.60%	19	7.40%	9	3.60%	7	3.80%
Moderate	58	20.90%	13	5.10%	12	4.80%	7	3.80%
Quite a bit	55	19.90%	7	2.70%	3	1.20%	2	1.10%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	113	40.80%	20	7.80%	15	6.00%	9	4.90%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Observed cases	277	100.00%	257	100.00%	248	100.00%	185	100.00%
PFDI 7 (pain in lower back most days)
Symptom-free	126	45.50%	182	70.80%	178	71.80%	139	75.10%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Somewhat	46	16.60%	25	9.70%	22	8.90%	13	7.00%
Moderate	42	15.20%	25	9.70%	19	7.70%	17	9.20%
Quite a bit	63	22.70%	25	9.70%	29	11.70%	16	8.60%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	105	37.90%	50	19.40%	48	19.40%	33	17.80%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Observed cases	277	100.00%	257	100.00%	248	100.00%	185	100.00%
PFDI 46 (abdominal or lower back pain when straining for any reason)
Symptom-free	167	60.30%	210	81.70%	205	82.70%	156	84.30%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Somewhat	42	15.20%	16	6.20%	13	5.20%	10	5.40%
Moderate	36	13.00%	15	5.80%	18	7.30%	10	5.40%
Quite a bit	32	11.60%	16	6.20%	12	4.80%	9	4.90%
R2 (moderate or quite a bit)	68	24.60%	31	12.00%	30	12.10%	19	10.30%	P < 0.00001*	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Observed cases	277	100.00%	257	100.00%	248	100.00%	185	100.00%

Table 3. Absolute and Relative Frequencies of the Four Symptom Outcomes and the Combined Outcome R2 Before and 6, 12 and 24 Months After POP Reconstruction in the Total Population

Pre- and postoperative pain symptoms (total population, n = 277)

Baseline (phase 0)

6 months after surgery (phase 1)

12 months after surgery (phase 2)

24 months after surgery (phase 3)

Cochran’s Q-tests for tesing global effects (P-values)

McNemar tests for testing simple effects (phase pairs with significant differences)

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Frequencies at each postoperative stage refer to the number of patients who were observed in this stage. The global time effects on the prevalence rates of R2 and of the “symptom-free” outcome were tested for significance with Cochran’s Q-tests. Whenever significant global effects were revealed, McNemar tests were subsequently performed to test the simple effects, i.e., for identifying the phase pairs with significant differences in the investigated prevalence rates. “*” (number pairs) indicates significant global effects on (phase pairs with significant differences in) the investigated prevalence rates at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance α* (where α* < α (= 0.05)). POP: pelvic organ prolapse; PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory.

PFDI 1 (pressure in the lower abdomen)

Symptom-free

131

47.30%

213

82.90%

213

85.90%

163

88.10%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Somewhat

19.90%

8.90%

7.30%

6.50%

Moderate

17.00%

5.40%

3.60%

4.30%

Quite a bit

15.90%

2.70%

3.20%

1.10%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

32.90%

8.10%

6.80%

5.40%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Observed cases

277

100.00%

257

100.00%

248

100.00%

185

100.00%

PFDI 2 (pain in the lower abdomen or genital area)

Symptom-free

167

60.30%

217

84.40%

218

87.90%

171

92.40%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Somewhat

17.00%

7.00%

6.50%

4.90%

Moderate

13.40%

5.80%

3.20%

1.60%

Quite a bit

9.40%

2.70%

2.40%

1.10%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

22.80%

8.50%

5.60%

2.70%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Observed cases

277

100.00%

257

100.00%

248

100.00%

185

100.00%

PFDI 3 (heaviness or dullness in the pelvic area)

Symptom-free

141

50.90%

226

87.90%

223

89.90%

170

91.90%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Somewhat

22.00%

8.60%

5.20%

5.40%

Moderate

14.10%

1.90%

2.40%

1.60%

Quite a bit

13.00%

1.60%

2.40%

1.10%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

27.10%

3.50%

4.80%

2.70%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Observed cases

277

100.00%

257

100.00%

248

100.00%

185

100.00%

PFDI 6 (pelvic discomfort during standing or pshysically exerting)

Symptom-free

107

38.60%

218

84.80%

224

90.30%

169

91.40%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Somewhat

20.60%

7.40%

3.60%

3.80%

Moderate

20.90%

5.10%

4.80%

3.80%

Quite a bit

19.90%

2.70%

1.20%

1.10%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

113

40.80%

7.80%

6.00%

4.90%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Observed cases

277

100.00%

257

100.00%

248

100.00%

185

100.00%

PFDI 7 (pain in lower back most days)

Symptom-free

126

45.50%

182

70.80%

178

71.80%

139

75.10%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Somewhat

16.60%

9.70%

8.90%

7.00%

Moderate

15.20%

9.70%

7.70%

9.20%

Quite a bit

22.70%

9.70%

11.70%

8.60%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

105

37.90%

19.40%

17.80%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Observed cases

277

100.00%

257

100.00%

248

100.00%

185

100.00%

PFDI 46 (abdominal or lower back pain when straining for any reason)

Symptom-free

167

60.30%

210

81.70%

205

82.70%

156

84.30%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Somewhat

15.20%

6.20%

5.20%

5.40%

Moderate

13.00%

5.80%

7.30%

5.40%

Quite a bit

11.60%

6.20%

4.80%

4.90%

R2 (moderate or quite a bit)

24.60%

12.00%

12.10%

10.30%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Observed cases

277

100.00%

257

100.00%

248

100.00%

185

100.00%

Table 4. Pre- and Postoperative Observed Cases and Occurrences of RPCs in the Anterior, Visceral, Posterior and All Complaint Areas in the Total Population (n = 277)

Location of pain symptoms

Baseline (phase 0)

6 m after surgery (phase 1)

12 m after surgery (phase 2)

24 m after surgery (phase 3)

Cochran’s Q-tests for testing global effects (Q-values and corresponding P-values)

McNemar tests for testing simple effects (phase pairs with signigicant differences)

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Additionally, the cure rates, ORs and 95% CIs of the ORs, when comparing the postoperative prevalence rates of RPCs with those at baseline, were entered. OR is the chance of symptom occurrence in an experimental condition (say A) divided by the chance of symptom occurrence in another experimental condition (say B). An OR equal to 1 means identical chances for symptom occurrence in both experimental conditions. Cochran’s Q-tests followed by McNemar tests were applied for testing global and simple effects of the surgery on the occurrence of RPCs in each complaint area. The same tests were also performed to test global and local complaint-area differences in the occurrence of RPC at baseline as well as at each postoperative phase (6, 12 and 24 months after surgery). “*” (“+”) indicates significant global surgery or region effects at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance (at the nominal level of significance α = 0.05). Number (capital letter) pairs characterize significant differences between corresponding phase or complaint-area pairs. Note that the analysis of single effects with the McNemar tests was only performed when the prior applied Cochran’s tests supply significant global effects. RPC: relevant pain complaint; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval; PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory.

Front area (PFDI 1 and PFDI 2)

Observed cases

277

257

248

185

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 136.56

RPCs

105

37.90%

11.70%

9.30%

5.90%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Cure rates of the RPC

69.13%

75.46%

84.43%

OR of the RPC

0.216

0.167

0.104

95% CI of OR

0.14 - 0.34

0.10 - 0.27

0.05 - 0.20

Visceral area (PFDI 3 and PFDI 6)

Observed cases

277

257

248

185

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 193.41

RPCs

129

46.60%

8.60%

7.30%

5.90%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Cure rates of the RPC

81.55%

84.33%

87.34%

OR of the RPC

0.107

0.090

0.073

95% CI of OR

0.07 - 0.17

0.05 - 0.15

0.04 - 0.13

Posterior area (PFDI 7 and PFDI 46)

Observed cases

277

257

248

185

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 37.44

RPCs

122

44.00%

24.10%

22.60%

24.10%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Cure rates of the RPC

45.23%

48.64%

45.23%

OR of the RPC

0.403

0.370

0.339

95% CI of OR

0.28 - 0.57

0.26 - 0.53

0.23 - 0.51

Testing global and simple differences in the occurence of relevant complaints between areas (Cochran's Q- and McNemar tests)

Q_{(DF = 2)} = 6.92
P = 0.0314⁺
F/V

Q_{(DF = 2)} = 37.33
P < 0.00001*
F/B, V/B

Q_{(DF = 2)} = 44.10
P < 0.00001*
F/B, V/B

Q_{(DF = 2)} = 36.46
P < 0.00001*
F/B, V/B

All areas (PFDI 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 46)

Observed cases

277

257

248

185

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 122.20

RPCs

187

67.50%

31.10%

27.00%

24.90%

P < 0.00001*

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Cure rates of the RPC

53.93%

59.98%

63.11%

OR of the RPC

0.218

0.178

0.159

95% CI of OR

0.16 - 0.30

0.13 - 0.25

0.11 - 0.23

**Table 5.** Absolute and Relative Frequencies (Prevalence Rates) of RPCs for Patients With Posterior/Apical POP (Group paP; n = 135) and Those With Anterior/Apical POP (Group aaP; n = 142)
Regional dependent pain (posterior/apical (n = 135) versus anterior/apical (n = 142))	Comparisons of postoperative RPCs in the front, visceral, back and all areas between patients with posterior/apical and anterior/apical POP-Q defect
“” (“+”) indicates significant global surgery or group effects on the prevalence of RPC at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance (at the nominal level of significance α = 0.05). Number pairs characterize significant differences between the corresponding phases. The prevalence rates of RPCs were significantly reduced after surgery in both groups and that for each complaint area (anterior, visceral, posterior and all areas (Cochran’s Q-tests, followed by McNemar tests, P < α, where α* a Bonferroni corrected α (α* < α = 0.05)). Comparisons of the RPC frequencies between “paP” and “aaP” patients into each phase (baseline and 6, 12, 24 months after surgery) and in each complaint area showed that “aaP” patients had significantly more pain reduction than “paP” patients 6 and 24 months after surgery and that in any complaint area (X²-tests, P-values significant at the nominal α (= 0.05) or at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance α, where α < α). RPC: relevant pain complaint; POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification system; PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory.
Front area (PFDI 1 and PFDI 2) (RPC: “PFDI 1 = R2 or PFDI 2 = R2”)
RPC in the posterior/apical sample	56	41.50%	15	11.80%	16	13.00%	10	9.10%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 67.37	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	135		127		123		110		P < 0.00001*
RPC in the anterior/apical sample	49	34.50%	15	11.50%	7	5.60%	1	1.30%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 72.73	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	142		130		125		75		P < 0.00001*
X²-tests for testing posterior/apical vs. anterior/apical	X²(1) = 1.43 P = 0.231		X²(1) = 0.004 P = 0.945		X²(1) = 4.04 P = 0.044⁺		X²(1) = 4.79 P = 0.028⁺
Visceral area (PFDI 3 and PFDI 6) (RPC: “PFDI 3 = R2 or PFDI 6 = R2”
RPC in the posterior/apical sample	68	50.40%	14	11.00%	14	11.40%	10	9.10%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 136.56	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	135		127		123		110		P < 0.00001*
RPC in the anterior/apical sample	61	43.00%	8	6.20%	4	3.20%	1	1.30%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 93.23	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	142		130		125		75		P < 0.00001*
X²-tests for testing posterior/apical vs. anterior/apical	X²(1) = 1.52 P = 0.256		X²(1) = 1.94 P = 0.162		X²(1) = 6.16 P = 0.013⁺		X²(1) = 4.79 P = 0.028⁺
Posterior area (PFDI 7 and PFDI 46) (RPC: “PFDI 7 = R2 or PFDI 46 = R2”)
RPC in the posterior/apical sample	67	49.60%	37	29.10%	39	31.70%	29	26.40%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 19.21	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	135		127		123		110		P = 0.0002*
RPC in the anterior/apical sample	55	38.70%	25	19.20%	17	13.60%	10	13.30%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 21.98	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	142		130		125		75		P = 0.0001*
X²-tests for testing posterior/apical vs. anterior/apical	X²(1) = 3.33 P = 0.067		X²(1) = 3.44 P = 0.063		X²(1) = 11.62 P < 0.0001*		X²(1) = 4.55 P = 0.032⁺
All areas (PFDI: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 46) (RPC: “at least one of the PFDIs = R2”
RPC in the posterior/apical sample	100	74.10%	45	35.40%	48	39.00%	35	31.80%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 65.15	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	135		127		123		110		P < 0.00001*
RPC in the anterior/apical sample	87	61.30%	35	26.90%	19	15.20%	11	14.70%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 61.42	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	142		130		125		75		P < 0.00001*
X²-tests for testing posterior/apical vs. anterior/apical	X²(1) = 5.52 P = 0.018⁺	X²(1) = 2.17 P = 0.140			X²(1) = 17.84 P < 0.0001*		X²(1) = 7.02 P = 0.008*

Table 5. Absolute and Relative Frequencies (Prevalence Rates) of RPCs for Patients With Posterior/Apical POP (Group paP; n = 135) and Those With Anterior/Apical POP (Group aaP; n = 142)

Regional dependent pain (posterior/apical (n = 135) versus anterior/apical (n = 142))

Comparisons of postoperative RPCs in the front, visceral, back and all areas between patients with posterior/apical and anterior/apical POP-Q defect

Baseline (phase 0)

6 m after surgery (phase 1)

12 m after surgery (phase 2)

24 m after surgery (phase 3)

Cochran’s Q-tests for testing global effects

McNemar tests for testing simple effects

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

“*” (“+”) indicates significant global surgery or group effects on the prevalence of RPC at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance (at the nominal level of significance α = 0.05). Number pairs characterize significant differences between the corresponding phases. The prevalence rates of RPCs were significantly reduced after surgery in both groups and that for each complaint area (anterior, visceral, posterior and all areas (Cochran’s Q-tests, followed by McNemar tests, P < α*, where α* a Bonferroni corrected α (α* < α = 0.05)). Comparisons of the RPC frequencies between “paP” and “aaP” patients into each phase (baseline and 6, 12, 24 months after surgery) and in each complaint area showed that “aaP” patients had significantly more pain reduction than “paP” patients 6 and 24 months after surgery and that in any complaint area (X²-tests, P-values significant at the nominal α (= 0.05) or at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance α*, where α* < α). RPC: relevant pain complaint; POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification system; PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory.

Front area (PFDI 1 and PFDI 2) (RPC: “PFDI 1 = R2 or PFDI 2 = R2”)

RPC in the posterior/apical sample

41.50%

11.80%

13.00%

9.10%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 67.37

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

135

127

123

110

P < 0.00001*

RPC in the anterior/apical sample

34.50%

11.50%

5.60%

1.30%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 72.73

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

142

130

125

P < 0.00001*

X²-tests for testing posterior/apical vs. anterior/apical

X²(1) = 1.43
P = 0.231

X²(1) = 0.004
P = 0.945

X²(1) = 4.04
P = 0.044⁺

X²(1) = 4.79
P = 0.028⁺

Visceral area (PFDI 3 and PFDI 6) (RPC: “PFDI 3 = R2 or PFDI 6 = R2”

RPC in the posterior/apical sample

50.40%

11.00%

11.40%

9.10%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 136.56

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

135

127

123

110

P < 0.00001*

RPC in the anterior/apical sample

43.00%

6.20%

3.20%

1.30%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 93.23

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

142

130

125

P < 0.00001*

X²-tests for testing posterior/apical vs. anterior/apical

X²(1) = 1.52
P = 0.256

X²(1) = 1.94
P = 0.162

X²(1) = 6.16
P = 0.013⁺

X²(1) = 4.79
P = 0.028⁺

Posterior area (PFDI 7 and PFDI 46) (RPC: “PFDI 7 = R2 or PFDI 46 = R2”)

RPC in the posterior/apical sample

49.60%

29.10%

31.70%

26.40%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 19.21

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

135

127

123

110

P = 0.0002*

RPC in the anterior/apical sample

38.70%

19.20%

13.60%

13.30%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 21.98

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

142

130

125

P = 0.0001*

X²-tests for testing posterior/apical vs. anterior/apical

X²(1) = 3.33
P = 0.067

X²(1) = 3.44
P = 0.063

X²(1) = 11.62
P < 0.0001*

X²(1) = 4.55
P = 0.032⁺

All areas (PFDI: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 46) (RPC: “at least one of the PFDIs = R2”

RPC in the posterior/apical sample

100

74.10%

35.40%

39.00%

31.80%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 65.15

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

135

127

123

110

P < 0.00001*

RPC in the anterior/apical sample

61.30%

26.90%

15.20%

14.70%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 61.42

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

142

130

125

P < 0.00001*

X²-tests for testing posterior/apical vs. anterior/apical

X²(1) = 5.52
P = 0.018⁺

X²(1) = 2.17
P = 0.140

X²(1) = 17.84
P < 0.0001*

X²(1) = 7.02
P = 0.008*

**Table 6.** Absolute and Relative RPC Frequencies (Prevalence Rates) of Patients With Stage 2 POP-Q (Group S2P; n = 122) and Stage 3 or 4 POP-Q Stage (Group S34P; n = 150)
Regional dependent pain (POP-Q stage 2 (n = 122) versus POP-Q stage 3 or 4 (n = 150))	Comparisons of postoperative RPCs in the front, visceral, back and all areasbetween patients with POP-Q stage 2 and POP-Q stage 3 or 4
“” (“+”) indicates significant global surgery or group effects on the prevalence of RPC at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance (at the nominal level of significance α = 0.05). Number pairs characterize significant (or marginal significant differences whenever provided with the superscript “+”) differences between the corresponding phases. The prevalence rates of RPCs were significantly reduced after surgery in both groups and that for each complaint area (anterior, visceral, posterior and all complaints) (Cochran’s Q-tests, followed by McNemar tests, P < α, where α* a Bonferroni corrected α (α* < α = 0.05)). Comparisons of the RPC frequencies between “S2P” and “S34P” patients into each phase (baseline and 6, 12, 24 months after surgery) and in each complaint area showed that “S34P” patients had significantly more pain reduction than “S2P” patients 6 and 24 months after surgery in the anterior, posterior and the whole area (X²-tests, P-values significant at the nominal α (= 0.05) or at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance α, where α < α). POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification system; RPC: relevant pain complaint; PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory.
Front area (PFDI 1 and PFDI 2) (RPC: “PFDI 1 = R2 or PFDI 2 = R2”)
RPC in the “POP-Q stage 2” sample	48	39.30%	13	11.60%	16	14.30%	9	9.90%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 49.25	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	122		112		112		91		P < 0.00001*
RPC in the “POP-Q stage 3/4” sample	55	36.70%	17	12.10%	6	4.60%	2	2.20%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 86.28	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	150		140		131		89		P < 0.00001*
X²-tests for testing POP-Q stage 2 vs. POP-Q stage 3 or 4	X²(1) = 0.20 P = 0.650		X²(1) = 0.02 P = 0.896		X²(1) = 6.90 P = 0.008*		X²(1) = 4.58 P = 0.032⁺
Visceral area (PFDI 3 and PFDI 6) (RPC: “PFDI 3 = R2 or PFDI 6 = R2”)
RPC in the “POP-Q stage 2” sample	53	43.40%	13	11.60%	12	10.70%	8	8.80%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 65.26	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	122		112		112		91		P < 0.00001*
RPC in the “POP-Q stage 3/4” sample	74	49.30%	9	6.40%	6	4.60%	3	3.40%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 124.70	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	150		140		131		89		P < 0.00001*
X²-tests for testing POP-Q stage 2 vs. POP-Q stage 3 or 4	X²(1) = 0.93 P = 0.332		X²(1) = 2.09 P = 0.146		X²(1) = 3.31 P = 0.068		X²(1) = 2.30 P = 0.129
Posterior area (PFDI 7 and PFDI 46) (RPC: “PFDI 7 = R2 or PFDI 46 = R2”)
RPC in the “POP-Q stage 2” sample	55	43.40%	32	28.60%	36	32.10%	27	29.70%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 11.24	0/1, 0/2⁺, 0/3⁺
Total cases	122		112		112		91		P = 0.0105⁺
RPC in the “POP-Q stage 3/4” sample	74	49.30%	30	21.40%	20	15.30%	12	13.50%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 25.96	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	150		140		131		89		P < 0.00001*
X²-tests for testing POP-Q stage 2 vs. POP-Q stage 3 or 4	X²(1) = 0.08 P = 0.772		X²(1) = 1.71 P = 0.190		X²(1) = 9.69 P = 0.002*		X²(1) = 6.94 P = 0.008*
All areas (PFDI: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 46) (RPC: “at least one of the PFDIs = R2”)
RPC in the “POP-Q stage 2” sample	55	45.10%	39	34.80%	44	39.30%	32	35.20%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 39.64	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	122		112		112		91		P < 0.00001*
RPC in the “POP-Q stage 3/4” sample	65	43.30%	41	29.30%	22	16.80%	14	15.70%	Q_{(DF = 3)} = 81.38	0/1, 0/2, 0/3
Total cases	150		140		131		89		P < 0.00001*
X²-tests for testing POP-Q stage 2 vs. POP-Q stage 3 or 4	X²(1) = 1.41 P = 0.559		X²(1) = 0.87 P = 0.348		X²(1) = 15.43 P < 0.0001*		X²(1) = 8.93 P = 0.002*

Table 6. Absolute and Relative RPC Frequencies (Prevalence Rates) of Patients With Stage 2 POP-Q (Group S2P; n = 122) and Stage 3 or 4 POP-Q Stage (Group S34P; n = 150)

Regional dependent pain (POP-Q stage 2 (n = 122) versus POP-Q stage 3 or 4 (n = 150))

Comparisons of postoperative RPCs in the front, visceral, back and all areasbetween patients with POP-Q stage 2 and POP-Q stage 3 or 4

Baseline (phase 0)

6 m after surgery (phase 1)

12 m after surgery (phase 2)

24 m after surgery (phase 3)

Cochran’s Q-tests for testing global effects

McNemar tests for testing simple effects

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

Absolute frequency

Relative frequency

“*” (“+”) indicates significant global surgery or group effects on the prevalence of RPC at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance (at the nominal level of significance α = 0.05). Number pairs characterize significant (or marginal significant differences whenever provided with the superscript “+”) differences between the corresponding phases. The prevalence rates of RPCs were significantly reduced after surgery in both groups and that for each complaint area (anterior, visceral, posterior and all complaints) (Cochran’s Q-tests, followed by McNemar tests, P < α*, where α* a Bonferroni corrected α (α* < α = 0.05)). Comparisons of the RPC frequencies between “S2P” and “S34P” patients into each phase (baseline and 6, 12, 24 months after surgery) and in each complaint area showed that “S34P” patients had significantly more pain reduction than “S2P” patients 6 and 24 months after surgery in the anterior, posterior and the whole area (X²-tests, P-values significant at the nominal α (= 0.05) or at a Bonferroni corrected level of significance α*, where α* < α). POP-Q: pelvic organ prolapse quantification system; RPC: relevant pain complaint; PFDI: pelvic floor disorder inventory.

Front area (PFDI 1 and PFDI 2) (RPC: “PFDI 1 = R2 or PFDI 2 = R2”)

RPC in the “POP-Q stage 2” sample

39.30%

11.60%

14.30%

9.90%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 49.25

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

122

112

P < 0.00001*

RPC in the “POP-Q stage 3/4” sample

36.70%

12.10%

4.60%

2.20%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 86.28

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

150

140

131

P < 0.00001*

X²-tests for testing POP-Q stage 2 vs. POP-Q stage 3 or 4

X²(1) = 0.20
P = 0.650

X²(1) = 0.02
P = 0.896

X²(1) = 6.90
P = 0.008*

X²(1) = 4.58
P = 0.032⁺

Visceral area (PFDI 3 and PFDI 6) (RPC: “PFDI 3 = R2 or PFDI 6 = R2”)

RPC in the “POP-Q stage 2” sample

43.40%

11.60%

10.70%

8.80%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 65.26

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

122

112

P < 0.00001*

RPC in the “POP-Q stage 3/4” sample

49.30%

6.40%

4.60%

3.40%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 124.70

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

150

140

131

P < 0.00001*

X²-tests for testing POP-Q stage 2 vs. POP-Q stage 3 or 4

X²(1) = 0.93
P = 0.332

X²(1) = 2.09
P = 0.146

X²(1) = 3.31
P = 0.068

X²(1) = 2.30
P = 0.129

Posterior area (PFDI 7 and PFDI 46) (RPC: “PFDI 7 = R2 or PFDI 46 = R2”)

RPC in the “POP-Q stage 2” sample

43.40%

28.60%

32.10%

29.70%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 11.24

0/1, 0/2⁺, 0/3⁺

Total cases

122

112

P = 0.0105⁺

RPC in the “POP-Q stage 3/4” sample

49.30%

21.40%

15.30%

13.50%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 25.96

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

150

140

131

P < 0.00001*

X²-tests for testing POP-Q stage 2 vs. POP-Q stage 3 or 4

X²(1) = 0.08
P = 0.772

X²(1) = 1.71
P = 0.190

X²(1) = 9.69
P = 0.002*

X²(1) = 6.94
P = 0.008*

All areas (PFDI: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 46) (RPC: “at least one of the PFDIs = R2”)

RPC in the “POP-Q stage 2” sample

45.10%

34.80%

39.30%

35.20%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 39.64

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

122

112

P < 0.00001*

RPC in the “POP-Q stage 3/4” sample

43.30%

29.30%

16.80%

15.70%

Q_{(DF = 3)} = 81.38

0/1, 0/2, 0/3

Total cases

150

140

131

P < 0.00001*

X²-tests for testing POP-Q stage 2 vs. POP-Q stage 3 or 4

X²(1) = 1.41
P = 0.559

X²(1) = 0.87
P = 0.348

X²(1) = 15.43
P < 0.0001*

X²(1) = 8.93
P = 0.002*