OBJECTIVE: We conducted a case-control study to analyze risk factors for urogenital prolapse requiring surgery. METHODS: Cases were 108 women with a diagnosis of II or III degree uterovaginal prolapse and/or third degree cystocele. Controls were 100 women admitted to the same hospitals as the cases, for acute, non-gynecological, non-neoplastic conditions. RESULTS: Occupation showed an association with urogenital prolapse: in comparison with professional/managerial women, housewives had an odds ratios (OR) of urogenital prolapse of 3.1 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-8.8). Compared with nulliparae, parous women tended to have a higher risk of genital prolapse (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.9-7.8). In comparison with women reporting no vaginal delivery, the ORs were 3.0 for women reporting one vaginal delivery (95% CI 1.0-9.5), and 4.5 (95% CI 1.6-13.1) for women with two or more vaginal deliveries. Forceps delivery and birthweight were not associated with risk of prolapse after taking into account the effect of number of vaginal deliveries. The risk of urogenital prolapse was higher in women with mother or sisters reporting the condition: the ORs were, respectively, 3.2 (95% CI 1.1-7.6) and 2.4 (95% CI 1.0-5.6) in comparison with women whose mother or sisters reported no prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the clinical suggestion that parous women are at a higher risk of prolapse and the risk increases with number of vaginal deliveries. First-degree family history of prolapse seems to increase the risk of prolapse.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a case-control study to analyze risk factors for urogenital prolapse requiring surgery. METHODS: Cases were 108 women with a diagnosis of II or III degree uterovaginal prolapse and/or third degree cystocele. Controls were 100 women admitted to the same hospitals as the cases, for acute, non-gynecological, non-neoplastic conditions. RESULTS: Occupation showed an association with urogenital prolapse: in comparison with professional/managerial women, housewives had an odds ratios (OR) of urogenital prolapse of 3.1 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.6-8.8). Compared with nulliparae, parous women tended to have a higher risk of genital prolapse (OR 2.6, 95% CI 0.9-7.8). In comparison with women reporting no vaginal delivery, the ORs were 3.0 for women reporting one vaginal delivery (95% CI 1.0-9.5), and 4.5 (95% CI 1.6-13.1) for women with two or more vaginal deliveries. Forceps delivery and birthweight were not associated with risk of prolapse after taking into account the effect of number of vaginal deliveries. The risk of urogenital prolapse was higher in women with mother or sisters reporting the condition: the ORs were, respectively, 3.2 (95% CI 1.1-7.6) and 2.4 (95% CI 1.0-5.6) in comparison with women whose mother or sisters reported no prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the clinical suggestion that parous women are at a higher risk of prolapse and the risk increases with number of vaginal deliveries. First-degree family history of prolapse seems to increase the risk of prolapse.
Authors: Matthew D Barber; Kim Kenton; Nancy K Janz; Yvonne Hsu; Keisha Y Dyer; W Jerod Greer; Amanda White; Susie Meikle; Wen Ye Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Hye Jin Cho; Hyun Joo Jung; Sei Kwang Kim; Jong Rak Choi; Nam Hoon Cho; Sang Wook Bai Journal: Yonsei Med J Date: 2009-08-19 Impact factor: 2.759