Cathrine Reimers1, Jette E Stær-Jensen2, Franziska Siafarikas2,3, Kari Bø4, Marie Ellström Engh2,3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akershus University Hospital, PO Box 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway. creimers@online.no. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Akershus University Hospital, PO Box 1000, 1478, Lørenskog, Norway. 3. Faculty Division Akershus University Hospital, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is defined as the coexistence of anatomical POP and relevant symptoms. Vaginal bulge is the symptom most closely associated with the anatomical condition in nonpregnant women. Even if childbearing is a major risk factor for the development of POP, there is scant knowledge on the prevalence of specific POP symptoms, and how these symptoms relate to anatomical POP during pregnancy and postpartum. The aim of this study was to explore whether vaginal bulge symptoms were associated with anatomical POP in pregnancy and postpartum, and to present the prevalence of vaginal bulge symptoms throughout this period. METHODS: A prospective observational study was carried out following 300 nulliparous pregnant women with repeat assessments from mid-pregnancy until 1 year postpartum. Symptoms of vaginal bulge defined as the sensation of a vaginal bulge inside and/or outside the vagina were assessed by electronic questionnaires. Anatomical POP defined as pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q) stage ≥2 has been presented in a previous publication and showed a range of 1-9%. The association between the symptom vaginal bulge and anatomical POP at the various visits was analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Prevalence of vaginal bulge ranged between 16 and 23%. At 6 weeks postpartum the symptom was associated with anatomical POP; otherwise, these two features were unrelated. CONCLUSIONS: The symptom vaginal bulge was barely associated with anatomical POP, and cannot identify anatomical POP in pregnancy or postpartum.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is defined as the coexistence of anatomical POP and relevant symptoms. Vaginal bulge is the symptom most closely associated with the anatomical condition in nonpregnant women. Even if childbearing is a major risk factor for the development of POP, there is scant knowledge on the prevalence of specific POP symptoms, and how these symptoms relate to anatomical POP during pregnancy and postpartum. The aim of this study was to explore whether vaginal bulge symptoms were associated with anatomical POP in pregnancy and postpartum, and to present the prevalence of vaginal bulge symptoms throughout this period. METHODS: A prospective observational study was carried out following 300 nulliparous pregnant women with repeat assessments from mid-pregnancy until 1 year postpartum. Symptoms of vaginal bulge defined as the sensation of a vaginal bulge inside and/or outside the vagina were assessed by electronic questionnaires. Anatomical POP defined as pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q) stage ≥2 has been presented in a previous publication and showed a range of 1-9%. The association between the symptom vaginal bulge and anatomical POP at the various visits was analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Prevalence of vaginal bulge ranged between 16 and 23%. At 6 weeks postpartum the symptom was associated with anatomical POP; otherwise, these two features were unrelated. CONCLUSIONS: The symptom vaginal bulge was barely associated with anatomical POP, and cannot identify anatomical POP in pregnancy or postpartum.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anatomical POP; POP; POP symptoms; Postpartum; Pregnancy; Vaginal bulge
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: Chiara Ghetti; W Thomas Gregory; S Renee Edwards; Lesley N Otto; Amanda L Clark Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Bernard T Haylen; Christopher F Maher; Matthew D Barber; Sérgio Camargo; Vani Dandolu; Alex Digesu; Howard B Goldman; Martin Huser; Alfredo L Milani; Paul A Moran; Gabriel N Schaer; Mariëlla I J Withagen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Guri Rortveit; Jeanette S Brown; David H Thom; Stephen K Van Den Eeden; Jennifer M Creasman; Leslee L Subak Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 7.661