OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effects of pregnancy and mode of delivery on the prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational multicenter study of women presenting to 6 gynecology clinics. Demographic data collected included: height, weight, gravidity, parity, and number of vaginal deliveries. Patients were diagnosed with incontinence by questionnaire. Standard univariate logistic regression analyses' were performed to determine the contribution of pregnancy, mode of delivery, and BMI on the prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence. RESULTS: One thousand and four women were enrolled over an 18-month period. Two hundred and thirty-seven and 128 subjects had urinary and fecal incontinence, respectively. Odds ratio (95% CI) calculated for the prevalence of urinary incontinence by pregnancy and mode of delivery were: any term pregnancy vs no term pregnancy was 2.46 (1.53-3.95), any term pregnancy but no vaginal deliveries (cesarean section only) vs no term pregnancy was 1.95 (0.99-3.80), any term pregnancy and at least 1 vaginal delivery vs no term pregnancy was 2.53 (1.57-4.07), and any term pregnancy but no vaginal delivery (cesarean section only) vs any term pregnancy, and at least 1 vaginal delivery was 1.30 (0.77-3.95). Odds ratio (95% CI) calculated for the prevalence of fecal incontinence by pregnancy and mode of delivery were: any term pregnancy vs no term pregnancy was 2.26 (1.22-4.19), any term pregnancy but no vaginal deliveries (cesarean section only) vs no term pregnancy was 1.13 (0.43-2.96), any term pregnancy and at least 1 vaginal delivery vs no term pregnancy was 2.41 (1.30-4.49), and any term pregnancy but no vaginal deliveries (cesarean section only) vs any term pregnancy, and at least 1 vaginal delivery was 2.15 (0.97-4.77). BMI and age did not impact these results. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy increases the risk of urinary and fecal incontinence. Cesarean section does not decrease the risk of urinary or fecal incontinence compared to pregnancy with a vaginal delivery.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relative effects of pregnancy and mode of delivery on the prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective, observational multicenter study of women presenting to 6 gynecology clinics. Demographic data collected included: height, weight, gravidity, parity, and number of vaginal deliveries. Patients were diagnosed with incontinence by questionnaire. Standard univariate logistic regression analyses' were performed to determine the contribution of pregnancy, mode of delivery, and BMI on the prevalence of urinary and fecal incontinence. RESULTS: One thousand and four women were enrolled over an 18-month period. Two hundred and thirty-seven and 128 subjects had urinary and fecal incontinence, respectively. Odds ratio (95% CI) calculated for the prevalence of urinary incontinence by pregnancy and mode of delivery were: any term pregnancy vs no term pregnancy was 2.46 (1.53-3.95), any term pregnancy but no vaginal deliveries (cesarean section only) vs no term pregnancy was 1.95 (0.99-3.80), any term pregnancy and at least 1 vaginal delivery vs no term pregnancy was 2.53 (1.57-4.07), and any term pregnancy but no vaginal delivery (cesarean section only) vs any term pregnancy, and at least 1 vaginal delivery was 1.30 (0.77-3.95). Odds ratio (95% CI) calculated for the prevalence of fecal incontinence by pregnancy and mode of delivery were: any term pregnancy vs no term pregnancy was 2.26 (1.22-4.19), any term pregnancy but no vaginal deliveries (cesarean section only) vs no term pregnancy was 1.13 (0.43-2.96), any term pregnancy and at least 1 vaginal delivery vs no term pregnancy was 2.41 (1.30-4.49), and any term pregnancy but no vaginal deliveries (cesarean section only) vs any term pregnancy, and at least 1 vaginal delivery was 2.15 (0.97-4.77). BMI and age did not impact these results. CONCLUSION: Pregnancy increases the risk of urinary and fecal incontinence. Cesarean section does not decrease the risk of urinary or fecal incontinence compared to pregnancy with a vaginal delivery.
Authors: Annemarie G Hirsch; Vatche A Minassian; Anne Dilley; Jennifer Sartorius; Walter F Stewart Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-05-11 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Gisele Martins; Zaida A S G Soler; José Antônio Cordeiro; João Luiz Amaro; Katherine N Moore Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Thomas J Connolly; Heather J Litman; Sharon L Tennstedt; Carol L Link; John B McKinlay Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2007-01-12
Authors: Xiao Xu; Julie S Ivy; Divya A Patel; Sejal N Patel; Dean G Smith; Scott B Ransom; Dee Fenner; John O L Delancey Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 2.681