Ingrid Nygaard1, Catherine Bradley, Debra Brandt. 1. University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. Ingrid-nygaard@uiowa.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse in older women using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification examination and to identify factors associated with prolapse. METHODS: Women with a uterus enrolled at one site of the Women's Health Initiative Hormone Replacement Therapy randomized clinical trial were eligible for this ancillary cross-sectional study. Subjects underwent a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification examination during a maximal Valsalva maneuver and in addition completed a questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for each of 2 definitions of prolapse: 1) Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage II or greater and 2) the leading edge of prolapse measured at the hymen or below. RESULTS: In 270 participants, age (mean +/- SD) was 68.3 +/- 5.6 years, body mass index was 30.4 +/- 6.2 kg/m(2), and vaginal parity (median [range]) was 3 (0-12). The proportions of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stages (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were stage 0, 2.3% (95% CI 0.8-4.8%); stage I, 33.0% (95% CI 27.4-39.0%); stage II, 62.9% (95% CI 56.8-68.7%); and stage III, 1.9% (95% CI 0.6-4.3%). In 25.2% (95% CI 20.1-30.8%), the leading edge of prolapse was at the hymen or below. Hormone therapy was not associated with prolapse (P =.9). On multivariable analysis, less education (odds ratio [OR] 2.16, 95% CI 1.10-4.24) and higher vaginal parity (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.03-2.50) were associated with prolapse when defined as stage II or greater. For prolapse defined by the leading edge at or below the hymen, older age had a decreased risk (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.92) and less education, and larger babies had an increased risk (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.31-4.32 and OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.07-3.64, respectively). CONCLUSION: Some degree of prolapse is nearly ubiquitous in older women, which should be considered in the development of clinically relevant definitions of prolapse. Risk factors for prolapse differed depending on the definition of prolapse used.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse in older women using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification examination and to identify factors associated with prolapse. METHODS:Women with a uterus enrolled at one site of the Women's Health Initiative Hormone Replacement Therapy randomized clinical trial were eligible for this ancillary cross-sectional study. Subjects underwent a Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification examination during a maximal Valsalva maneuver and in addition completed a questionnaire. Logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for each of 2 definitions of prolapse: 1) Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stage II or greater and 2) the leading edge of prolapse measured at the hymen or below. RESULTS: In 270 participants, age (mean +/- SD) was 68.3 +/- 5.6 years, body mass index was 30.4 +/- 6.2 kg/m(2), and vaginal parity (median [range]) was 3 (0-12). The proportions of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification stages (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were stage 0, 2.3% (95% CI 0.8-4.8%); stage I, 33.0% (95% CI 27.4-39.0%); stage II, 62.9% (95% CI 56.8-68.7%); and stage III, 1.9% (95% CI 0.6-4.3%). In 25.2% (95% CI 20.1-30.8%), the leading edge of prolapse was at the hymen or below. Hormone therapy was not associated with prolapse (P =.9). On multivariable analysis, less education (odds ratio [OR] 2.16, 95% CI 1.10-4.24) and higher vaginal parity (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.03-2.50) were associated with prolapse when defined as stage II or greater. For prolapse defined by the leading edge at or below the hymen, older age had a decreased risk (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.92) and less education, and larger babies had an increased risk (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.31-4.32 and OR 1.97, 95% CI 1.07-3.64, respectively). CONCLUSION: Some degree of prolapse is nearly ubiquitous in older women, which should be considered in the development of clinically relevant definitions of prolapse. Risk factors for prolapse differed depending on the definition of prolapse used.
Authors: David D Rahn; Renée M Ward; Tatiana V Sanses; Cassandra Carberry; Mamta M Mamik; Kate V Meriwether; Cedric K Olivera; Husam Abed; Ethan M Balk; Miles Murphy Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Lieschen H Quiroz; Alvaro Muñoz; Stuart H Shippey; Robert E Gutman; Victoria L Handa Journal: J Reprod Med Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 0.142
Authors: Daniel Altman; Annika López; Catharina Gustafsson; Christian Falconer; Johan Nordenstam; Jan Zetterström Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2005-04-05
Authors: Roberta E Blandon; Adil E Bharucha; L Joseph Melton; Cathy D Schleck; Ebenezer O Babalola; Alan R Zinsmeister; John B Gebhart Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Victoria L Handa; Ingrid Nygaard; Kimberly Kenton; Geoffrey W Cundiff; Chiara Ghetti; Wen Ye; Holly E Richter Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2009-09-24