Australian pelvic floor questionnaire : a validated interviewer-administered pelvic floor questionnaire for routine clinic and research

The aim of this study was to design and validate an interviewer-administered pelvic floor questionnaire that integrates bladder, bowel and sexual function, pelvic organ prolapse, severity, bothersomeness and condition-specific quality of life. Validation testing of the questionnaire was performed using data from 106 urogynaecological patients and a separately sampled community cohort of 49 women. Missing data did not exceed 2% for any question. It distinguished community and urogynaecological populations regarding pelvic floor dysfunction. The bladder domain correlated with the short version of the Urogenital Distress Inventory, bowel function with an established bowel questionnaire and prolapse symptoms with the International Continence Society prolapse quantification. Sexual function assessment reflected scores on the McCoy Female Sexuality Questionnaire. Cronbach’s α coefficients were acceptable in all domains. Kappa coefficients of agreement for the test–retest analyses varied from 0.5 to 1.0. The interviewer-administered pelvic floor questionnaire assessed pelvic floor function in a reproducible and valid fashion in a typical urogynaecological clinic.

A validated self-administered female pelvic floor questionnaire

Introduction and hypothesis: The aim of this study was to validate a self-administered version of the already validated interviewer-administered Australian pelvic floor questionnaire. Methods: The questionnaire was completed by 163 women attending an urogynecological clinic. Face and convergent validity was assessed. Reliability testing and comparison with the interviewer-administered version was performed in a subset of 105 patients. Responsiveness was evaluated in a subset of 73 women. Results: Missing data did not exceed 4% for any question. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were acceptable in all domains. Kappa coefficients for the test–retest analyses varied from 0.64–1.0. Prolapse symptoms correlated significantly with the pelvic organ prolapse quantification. Urodynamics confirmed the reported symptom stress incontinence in 70%. The self and interviewer administered questionnaires demonstrated equivalence. Effect sizes ranged from 0.6 to 1.4. Conclusions: This self-administered pelvic floor questionnaire assessed pelvic floor function in a reproducible and valid fashion and due to its responsiveness, can be used for routine clinical assessment and outcome research.

Does the addition of Clonidine to lumbar nerve root blocks improve outcome? A randomised, prospective, single-blinded controlled pilot study

Purpose To evaluate if adding clonidine to a standard nerve root block containing local anaesthetic and steroid improved the outcome of patients with severe lumbar nerve root pain secondary to MRI proven lumbar disc prolapse. Methods We undertook a single blind, prospective, randomised controlled trial evaluating 100 consecutive patients with nerve root pain secondary to lumbar disc prolapse undergoing trans-foraminal epidural steroid injection either with or without the addition of clonidine. 50 patients were allocated to each arm of the study. The primary outcome measure was the avoidance of a second procedure- repeat injection or micro-discectomy surgery. Secondary outcome measures were also studied: pain scores for leg and back pain using a visual analogue scale (VAS), the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and the Measure Your Own Medical Outcome Profile (MYMOP). Follow up was carried out at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1 year. Results No serious complications occurred. Of the 50 patients who received the addition of clonidine, 56% were classified as successful injections, with no further intervention required, as opposed to 40% who received the standard injection. This difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.109, chi-squared test). All secondary measures showed no statistically significant differences between the groups except curiously, the standard group who had been classified as successful had better leg pain relief than the clonidine group (p=0.026) at 1 year. Conclusions This pilot study has shown a 16% treatment effect with adding clonidine to lumbar nerve root blocks and that it is a safe injectate for this purpose.