C Reimers1,2, J Staer-Jensen1, F Siafarikas1,2, J Saltyte-Benth2, K Bø3, M Ellström Engh1,2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Akershus University Hospital, Lørenskog, Norway. 2. Faculty Division, Akershus University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 3. Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in pelvic organ support from mid pregnancy until 1 year postpartum among nulliparous pregnant women, and to examine whether delivery route affects changes in pelvic organ support. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Akershus University Hospital in Norway. POPULATION: A cohort of 300 nulliparous pregnant women included at mid-pregnancy. METHODS: Pelvic organ support assessed at 21 and 37 weeks of gestation, and again at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postpartum, by the use of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Linear mixed model was used to assess longitudinal change in pelvic organ support. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of anatomic POP. Change in POP-Q variables over time and between delivery groups. RESULTS: The prevalence of anatomic POP ranged from 0 to 10%. Vaginal POP-Q points made a cranial shift from mid to late pregnancy, a caudal shift following delivery, and again a cranial shift after 6 weeks postpartum. Postpartum change was present following both vaginal and caesarean deliveries, but was more pronounced following vaginal delivery. The perineal body and genital hiatus became longer from mid to late pregnancy, and shortened after 6 weeks postpartum. At 12 months postpartum all POP-Q points, except cervix, had recovered to baseline in the vaginal delivery group. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of anatomic POP was low in this cohort. There was change in pelvic organ support both during pregnancy and following vaginal as well as caesarean delivery. The short-term ability to recover was good after the first pregnancy and delivery. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Pelvic organ support changes during pregnancy. A contribution to the risk of POP?
OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in pelvic organ support from mid pregnancy until 1 year postpartum among nulliparous pregnant women, and to examine whether delivery route affects changes in pelvic organ support. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Akershus University Hospital in Norway. POPULATION: A cohort of 300 nulliparous pregnant women included at mid-pregnancy. METHODS: Pelvic organ support assessed at 21 and 37 weeks of gestation, and again at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months postpartum, by the use of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Linear mixed model was used to assess longitudinal change in pelvic organ support. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of anatomic POP. Change in POP-Q variables over time and between delivery groups. RESULTS: The prevalence of anatomic POP ranged from 0 to 10%. Vaginal POP-Q points made a cranial shift from mid to late pregnancy, a caudal shift following delivery, and again a cranial shift after 6 weeks postpartum. Postpartum change was present following both vaginal and caesarean deliveries, but was more pronounced following vaginal delivery. The perineal body and genital hiatus became longer from mid to late pregnancy, and shortened after 6 weeks postpartum. At 12 months postpartum all POP-Q points, except cervix, had recovered to baseline in the vaginal delivery group. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of anatomic POP was low in this cohort. There was change in pelvic organ support both during pregnancy and following vaginal as well as caesarean delivery. The short-term ability to recover was good after the first pregnancy and delivery. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Pelvic organ support changes during pregnancy. A contribution to the risk of POP?
Authors: Pamela S Fairchild; Lisa Kane Low; Katherine M Kowalk; Giselle E Kolenic; John O DeLancey; Dee E Fenner Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Anna Rajavuori; Jussi P Repo; Arja Häkkinen; Pirkko Palonen; Juhani Multanen; Pauliina Aukee Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X Date: 2021-11-08
Authors: Linda S Burkett; Timothy P Canavan; Stephanie M Glass Clark; Lauren E Giugale; Amanda M Artsen; Pamela A Moalli Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-08-17 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Ingrid E Nygaard; Ali Wolpern; Tyler Bardsley; Marlene J Egger; Janet M Shaw Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-08-14 Impact factor: 8.661