| Literature DB >> 34961500 |
Özer Birge1, Aliye Nigar Serin2, Mehmet Sait Bakır3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the socio-demographic characteristics of women with female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) and the results of FGM/C due to pelvic floor dysfunction.Entities:
Keywords: Assisted vaginal delivery; Female genital mutilition/cutting; Hydronephrosis; Pelvic floor; Pelvic organ prolapse; Urinary incontinence
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34961500 PMCID: PMC8713407 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-021-01576-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Womens Health ISSN: 1472-6874 Impact factor: 2.809
Demographic and clinical features of POP patients
| No POP (Group 1) (n: 69) | Mild POP (Group 2) (n: 230) | Severe POP (Group 3) (n: 229) | Total (n: 528) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (median/min–max) | 42 (32–65) | 44 (31–88) | 49 [30–91] | |||
| BMI (kg/m2) | < 25 | 25 (4,7%) | 74 (14%) | 29 (5.5%) | 128 (24.2%) | |
| ≥ 25 | 44 (8.3%) | 156 (29.5%) | 200 (37.9%) | 400 (75.8%) | ||
| Job | No | 43 (8.1%) | 135 (25.6%) | 93 (17.6%) | 271 (51.3%) | |
| Yes | 26 (4.9%) | 95 (18%) | 136 (25.8%) | 257 (48.7%) | ||
| Parity | No | 7 (1.3%) | 15 (2.8%) | 6 (1.1%) | 28 (5.3%) | |
| Yes | 62 (11.7%) | 215 (40.7%) | 223 (42.2%) | 500 (94.7%) | ||
| Urinary ıncontinence | No | 29 (5.5%) | 122 (23.1%) | 26 (4.9%) | 177 (33.5%) | |
| Yes | 40 (7.6%) | 108 (20.5%) | 203 (38.4%) | 351 (66.5%) | ||
| HUN | No | 41 (7.8%) | 109 (20.6%) | 34 (6.4%) | 184 (34.8%) | |
| Yes | 28 (5.3%) | 121 (22.9%) | 195 (36.9%) | 344 (65.2%) | ||
| Smoking | No | 68 (12.9%) | 214 (40.5%) | 205 (38.8%) | 487 (92.2%) | |
| Yes | 1 (0.2%) | 16 (3%) | 24 (4.5%) | 41 (7.8%) | ||
| Assisted vaginal delivery | No | 45 (8.5%) | 163 (30.9%) | 62 (11.7%) | 270 (51.1%) | |
| Yes | 24 (4.5%) | 67 (12.7%) | 167 (31.6%) | 258 (48.9%) | ||
| Delivery method | No | 7 (1.3%) | 15 (2.8%) | 6 (1.1%) | 28 (5.3%) | |
| VD | 52 (9.8%) | 170 (32.2%) | 201 (38.1%) | 423 (80.1%) | ||
| C/S | 10 (1.9%) | 45 (8.5%) | 22 (4.2%) | 77 (14.6%) | ||
| Parity | No | 7 (1.3%) | 15 (2.8%) | 6 (1.1%) | 28 (5.3%) | |
| 1 | 22 (4.2%) | 65 (12.3%) | 30 (5.7%) | 117 (22.2%) | ||
| 02-May | 38 (7.2%) | 138 (26.1%) | 95 (18%) | 271 (51.3%) | ||
| ≥ 5 | 2 (0.4%) | 12 (2.3%) | 98 (18.6%) | 112 (21.2%) | ||
| Residence | Rural | 43 (8.1%) | 153 (29%) | 165 (31.3%) | 361 (68.4%) | 0.227b |
| Urban | 26 (4.9%) | 77 (14.6%) | 64 (12.1%) | 167 (31.6%) | ||
| Educational status | No | 32 (6.1%) | 112 (21.2%) | 125 (23.7%) | 269 (50.9%) | 0.324b |
| Read and write | 37 (7%) | 118 (22.3%) | 104 (19.7%) | 259 (49.1%) | ||
| Menopausal status | No | 54 (10.2%) | 151 (28.6%) | 120 (22.7%) | 325 (61.6%) | |
| Yes | 15 (2.8%) | 79 (15%) | 109 (20.6%) | 203 (38.4%) | ||
| Baseline comorbidity | No | 68 (12.9%) | 219 (41.5%) | 177 (33.5%) | 464 (87.9%) | |
| Yes | 1 (0.2%) | 11 (2.1%) | 52 (9.9%) | 64 (12.2%) | ||
| FGM/C type | No | 7 (1.3%) | 16 (3%) | 9 (1.7%) | 32 (6.1%) | |
| Type 1 | 8 (1.5%) | 22 (4.1%) | 15 (6.6%) | 45 (8.5%) | ||
| Type 2 | 34 (6.4%) | 96 (18.2%) | 55 (10.4%) | 185 (35%) | ||
| Type 3 | 20 (3.8%) | 96 (18.2%) | 150 (28.4%) | 266 (50.4%) |
Statistically significant p values are numbered in bolditalics
POP: Pelvik organ prolapsus. BMI: body mass ındex., HUN: hydroureteronephrosis, VD: vaginal delivery, C/S: cesarean section, FGM/C: female genital mutilation/cutting
aKruskal-wallis
bChi-square
Univariate multinomial logistic regression analysis of the relationship between FGM/C types and POP
| Comparison between group 1 POP and group 2 POP | Comparison between group 1 POP and group 3 POP | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unadjusted OR | CI %95 | Unadjusted OR | CI %95 | ||||||
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | ||||||
| FGM/C status | No FGM/C | 0.476 | 0.173 | 1.308 | 0.171 | 0.058 | 0.511 | ||
| FGM/C type 1 | 0.573 | 0.222 | 1.469 | 0.246 | 0.250 | 0.094 | 0.666 | ||
| FGM/C type 2 | 0.588 | 0.316 | 1.094 | 0.094 | 0.216 | 0.115 | 0.406 | ||
| FGM/C type 3 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Statistically significant p values are numbered in italics and bolditalics
POP: Pelvik organ prolapsus, FGM/C: Female genital mutilation/Cutting, The reference category is: Group 1
Relationship between multivariate multinominal logistic analysis and POP
| Comparison between group 1 POP and group 2 POP | Comparison between group 1 POP and group 3 POP | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted OR | CI %95 | Adjusted OR | CI %95 | ||||||
| Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | ||||||
| Age (year) | contious | 1.01 | 0.98 | 1.04 | 0.451 | 1.054 | 1.018 | 1.092 | |
| BMI (Kg/m2) | BMI < 25 | 1.32 | 0.63 | 2.79 | 0.453 | 0.442 | 0.178 | 1.098 | |
| BMI ≥ 25 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Smoking | No | 0.202 | 0.021 | 1.571 | 0.127 | 0.177 | 0.023 | 1.387 | 0.099 |
| Yes | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Menopause status | No | 0.595 | 0.293 | 1.214 | 0.154 | 0.857 | 0.404 | 1.819 | 0.688 |
| Yes | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Parity | No | 0.634 | 0.212 | 1.94 | 0.403 | 0.425 | 0.126 | 1.552 | 0.195 |
| Yes | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Live in | Rural | 1.19 | 0.663 | 2.125 | 0.556 | 1.161 | 0.628 | 2.145 | |
| Urban | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Job | No | 1.08 | 0.569 | 1.781 | 0.978 | 0.564 | 0.312 | 1.02 | 0.058 |
| Yes | 1 | 1 | 1.01 | 62.2 | |||||
| FGM/C status | No FGM/C | 0.599 | 0.178 | 2.02 | 0.851 | 0.216 | 3.349 | 0.817 | |
| FGM/C type 1 | 0.643 | 0.193 | 2.145 | 0.473 | 1.675 | 0.432 | 6.503 | 0.456 | |
| FGM/C type 2 | 0.671 | 0.337 | 1.334 | 0.255 | 0.419 | 0.206 | 0.851 | ||
| FGM/C type 3 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Statistically significant p values are numbered in italics and bolditalics
POP: Pelvik organ prolapsus, FGM/C: female genital mutilation/Cutting, BMI: body mass ındex, SE: standart error, B: coefficient
Adjusted odds ratio: was used for; age, job (yes, no), parity (yes, no), smoking (yes, no), BMI (< 25, ≥ 25), Menopausal Status (yes,no), Residence (rural, urban), The reference category is: Group 1