OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the odds of pelvic organ prolapse vary significantly with the number of vaginal births and whether cesarean birth is associated with prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study of women over the age of 40, pelvic organ prolapse was defined as descent to or beyond the hymen. Logistic regression was used to estimate the relative odds of pelvic organ prolapse for each vaginal birth or cesarean birth, controlling for confounders. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety women underwent a pelvic organ prolapse quantification POPQ examination, and 72 were found to have pelvic organ prolapse. A single vaginal birth significantly increased the odds of prolapse (OR 9.73, 95% CI 2.68-35.35). Additional vaginal births were not associated with a significant increase in the odds of prolapse. Cesarean births were not associated with prolapse (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.49-3.54). CONCLUSION: The odds of pelvic organ prolapse were almost 10 times higher after a single vaginal birth. The marginal impact of additional births on this association was small.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the odds of pelvic organ prolapse vary significantly with the number of vaginal births and whether cesarean birth is associated with prolapse. STUDY DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study of women over the age of 40, pelvic organ prolapse was defined as descent to or beyond the hymen. Logistic regression was used to estimate the relative odds of pelvic organ prolapse for each vaginal birth or cesarean birth, controlling for confounders. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety women underwent a pelvic organ prolapse quantification POPQ examination, and 72 were found to have pelvic organ prolapse. A single vaginal birth significantly increased the odds of prolapse (OR 9.73, 95% CI 2.68-35.35). Additional vaginal births were not associated with a significant increase in the odds of prolapse. Cesarean births were not associated with prolapse (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.49-3.54). CONCLUSION: The odds of pelvic organ prolapse were almost 10 times higher after a single vaginal birth. The marginal impact of additional births on this association was small.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jeanette S Brown; L Elaine Waetjen; Leslee L Subak; David H Thom; Stephen Van den Eeden; Eric Vittinghoff Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Robert E Gutman; Daniel E Ford; Lieschen H Quiroz; Stuart H Shippey; Victoria L Handa Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2008-10-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Victoria L Handa; Harpreet K Pannu; Sohail Siddique; Robert Gutman; Julia VanRooyen; Geoff Cundiff Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Susan L Hendrix; Amanda Clark; Ingrid Nygaard; Aaron Aragaki; Vanessa Barnabei; Anne McTiernan Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Keith T Downing; Mubashir Billah; Eva Raparia; Anup Shah; Moshe C Silverstein; Amanda Ahmad; Gregory S Boutis Journal: J Mech Behav Biomed Mater Date: 2013-09-08
Authors: Aideen T O'Neill; Joanne Hockey; Patrick O'Brien; Amanda Williams; Tim P Morris; Tahira Khan; Emma Hardwick; Wai Yoong Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-08-10 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Heather J Furnas; Francisco L Canales; Rachel A Pedreira; Carly Comer; Samuel J Lin; Paul E Banwell Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2021-07-06