Hans Peter Dietz1, Francesco Scoti2, Nishamini Subramaniam2, Talia Friedman2, Ka Lai Shek2,3. 1. Sydney Medical School Nepean, Nepean Hospital, The University of Sydney, Penrith, NSW, 2750, Australia. hpdietz@bigpond.com. 2. Sydney Medical School Nepean, Nepean Hospital, The University of Sydney, Penrith, NSW, 2750, Australia. 3. Western Sydney University, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, Australia.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal childbirth clearly has an effect on pelvic floor anatomy, and pregnancy itself also likely plays a role. This study investigated the effects of consecutive pregnancies by comparing pelvic organ support and function in urogynecological patients delivered by cesarean section (CS) only. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using 161 archived data sets of urogynecological patients delivered exclusively by CS presenting with symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction between 2007 and 2015. Patients had undergone an interview, clinical examination using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system, and 3D/4D translabial ultrasound (TLUS) using Voluson systems. Measures of functional pelvic floor anatomy were obtained from stored ultrasound (US) volumes at a later date, using proprietary software, and blinded against all other data. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-one women delivered exclusively by CS were seen in a urogynecological clinic. Volume data analysis was possible in 151 patients. Mean age was 52 (26-82) years, with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 29.5 (18.4-48.7) kg/m2. Forty-three (28.5%) women had one CS, 67 (44.4%) had two, and 41 (27.1%) had three or more. On multivariate analysis, adjusting for age, BMI, history of hysterectomy, and incontinence or prolapse surgery, there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: On comparing women with one, two, or three or more CS, we found no significant differences in any measured sonographic parameters of pelvic organ descent and pelvic floor muscle function. This implies that subsequent pregnancies after the first are unlikely to exert significant additional effects on pelvic floor functional anatomy.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Vaginal childbirth clearly has an effect on pelvic floor anatomy, and pregnancy itself also likely plays a role. This study investigated the effects of consecutive pregnancies by comparing pelvic organ support and function in urogynecological patients delivered by cesarean section (CS) only. METHODS: This was a retrospective study using 161 archived data sets of urogynecological patients delivered exclusively by CS presenting with symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction between 2007 and 2015. Patients had undergone an interview, clinical examination using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system, and 3D/4D translabial ultrasound (TLUS) using Voluson systems. Measures of functional pelvic floor anatomy were obtained from stored ultrasound (US) volumes at a later date, using proprietary software, and blinded against all other data. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-one women delivered exclusively by CS were seen in a urogynecological clinic. Volume data analysis was possible in 151 patients. Mean age was 52 (26-82) years, with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 29.5 (18.4-48.7) kg/m2. Forty-three (28.5%) women had one CS, 67 (44.4%) had two, and 41 (27.1%) had three or more. On multivariate analysis, adjusting for age, BMI, history of hysterectomy, and incontinence or prolapse surgery, there were no significant differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: On comparing women with one, two, or three or more CS, we found no significant differences in any measured sonographic parameters of pelvic organ descent and pelvic floor muscle function. This implies that subsequent pregnancies after the first are unlikely to exert significant additional effects on pelvic floor functional anatomy.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D ultrasound; Cesarean section; Pelvic floor ultrasound; Pelvic organ prolapse; Pregnancy
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: Sallie S Oliphant; Ingrid E Nygaard; Wenjun Zong; Timothy P Canavan; Pamela A Moalli Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Amy L O'Boyle; Patrick J Woodman; John D O'Boyle; Gary D Davis; Steven E Swift Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jordana Barbosa da Silva; Ana Paula Rodrigues Rocha; Tatiana de Oliveira Sato; Patricia Driusso Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-07-30 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Juan Miguel Martínez-Galiano; Miguel Delgado-Rodríguez; Julián Rodríguez-Almagro; Antonio Hernández-Martínez Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-18 Impact factor: 3.390