OBJECTIVE: to compare Baden and Walker's (BW) classification system to the International Continence Society (ICS) standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse. METHODS: information about urogynecological investigation on 101 women, performed by the Urogynecology and Vaginal Surgery Sector of UNIFESP/EPM, was retrospectively analyzed. Only patients who had undergone the standard ICS exam which quantifies the pelvic prolapse were selected. According to ICS, the prolapse is analyzed through a standard reference system relating the hymen to the anatomic position of six vaginal points: two in the anterior vaginal wall, two in the vaginal apex and other two in the posterior vaginal wall. The maximum amount of pelvic organ prolapse was viewed and recorded during a Valsalva's maneuver. The measurement of the most distal point of the prolapse was performed and it was compared to the BW classification system. The data were analyzed by kappa statistics, to assess the concordance between the two terminologies. RESULTS: There was total correspondence only for the posterior vaginal prolapse stage IV (one patient) and for the uterus prolapse stage 0 (29 patients) with severe rectocele and absence of prolapse, respectively, according to BW. In the three types of prolapses evaluated, the values of kappa statistics were below 0.4, indicating a weak concordance between the two terminologies. There is an extensive variation in the measurement of the most distal point of prolapse when the BW classification is perfomed. CONCLUSIONS: there is a weak concordance between the BW classification system and the ICS standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse.
Genital prolapse; Pelvic floor; Stress urinary incontinence
