ABSTRACT
The study of pelvic orgAn prolApse (POP) is one AreA of medicine thAt seems so intuitive but in ActuAlity is replete with AnecdotAl evidence, cAse series, And very little hArd science. Most of this stems from the lAck of A scientificAlly vAlidAted And universAlly Agreed upon definition of the diseAse stAte of "pelvic orgAn prolApse." A clAssificAtion system to codify pelvic orgAn support hAs been defined And hAs gAined internAtionAl recognition. However, while it AccurAtely describes the degree or stAge of pelvic orgAn support, it does not clAssify it into normAl versus AbnormAl or "prolApse." This is Akin to hAving A blood pressure cuff to meAsure blood pressure but no definition As to whAt represents normAl versus hypertension. until we cAn define the diseAse, we cAnnot properly identify its etiology or mAke Any stAtements regArding therApy, prognosis, or nAturAl history. Therefore, All of the scientific literAture regArding PoP should be viewed with cAution, pAying pArticulAr Attention to how PoP is described And defined. Despite the current stAte of AffAirs, studies into the clAssificAtion And epidemiology of PoP Are moving forwArd As the scientific community hAs recognized the problems And is Addressing them viA reseArch protocols.
