open access
Does Home Birth Reduce the Risk of Pelvic Organ Prolapse?
Affiliations- Uşak Training and Research Hospital
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Saglik Bilimleri University, Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research Hospital,, Istanbul, Türkiye
- Süleymaniye Training and Research Hospital, zeytiburnu, 34000 istanbul, Türkiye
open access
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the relationship between vaginal birth and the development of POP among women who delivered in non-hospital settings (home birth).
Material and methods: Data were collected retrospectively from the files of patients who presented to a hospital outpatient clinic between April 1, 2011 and April 1, 2012 with complaints of urinary incontinence, uterine sagging, vaginal mass, or vaginal pain. The patients’ age, height, weight, body mass index, menopause age, number of deliveries, and presence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus were noted. Patients whose urogynecologic evaluation included POP Quantification (POP-Q) scoring were included in the study. The patients were separated into a group of women who had never given birth and another group of women with one or more deliveries.
Results: Of the 179 patients in the study, 28 had never given birth and 151 had given birth at least once. The nulliparous patients had no cystocele, rectocele, or uterine prolapse. The prevalence rates of cystocele, rectocele, and uterine prolapse were significantly higher in the multiparous group. Cystocele, rectocele, and uterine prolapse development were significantly correlated with number of deliveries, but there was no statistical association with age, body mass index, menopausal age, diabetes mellitus, or hypertension. univariate analysis reveals that the only factor effective in the development of cytocele, rectocele and prolapse is the number of births.
Conclusions: Our study suggests that only number of deliveries is associated with development of cystocele, rectocele, and uterine prolapse in women who gave birth by vaginal route in residential settings.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the relationship between vaginal birth and the development of POP among women who delivered in non-hospital settings (home birth).
Material and methods: Data were collected retrospectively from the files of patients who presented to a hospital outpatient clinic between April 1, 2011 and April 1, 2012 with complaints of urinary incontinence, uterine sagging, vaginal mass, or vaginal pain. The patients’ age, height, weight, body mass index, menopause age, number of deliveries, and presence of hypertension and diabetes mellitus were noted. Patients whose urogynecologic evaluation included POP Quantification (POP-Q) scoring were included in the study. The patients were separated into a group of women who had never given birth and another group of women with one or more deliveries.
Results: Of the 179 patients in the study, 28 had never given birth and 151 had given birth at least once. The nulliparous patients had no cystocele, rectocele, or uterine prolapse. The prevalence rates of cystocele, rectocele, and uterine prolapse were significantly higher in the multiparous group. Cystocele, rectocele, and uterine prolapse development were significantly correlated with number of deliveries, but there was no statistical association with age, body mass index, menopausal age, diabetes mellitus, or hypertension. univariate analysis reveals that the only factor effective in the development of cytocele, rectocele and prolapse is the number of births.
Conclusions: Our study suggests that only number of deliveries is associated with development of cystocele, rectocele, and uterine prolapse in women who gave birth by vaginal route in residential settings.
Keywords
POP-Q, cystocele, rectocele, uterine prolapse, vaginal delivery, home birth
About this articleTitle
Does Home Birth Reduce the Risk of Pelvic Organ Prolapse?
Journal
Issue
Article type
Research paper
Pages
433-437
Published online
2018-08-31
Page views
1653
Article views/downloads
1269
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Ginekol Pol 2018;89(8):433-437.
Keywords
POP-Q
cystocele
rectocele
uterine prolapse
vaginal delivery
home birth
Authors
Nuri Peker
Baki Erdem
Alpaslan Kaban
References (19)- Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, et al. Pelvic Floor Disorders Network. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA. 2008; 300(11): 1311–1316.
- Notten KJB, Vergeldt TFM, van Kuijk SMJ, et al. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26(11): 1559–1573.
- Moalli PA, Jones Ivy S, Meyn LA, et al. Risk factors associated with pelvic floor disorders in women undergoing surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101(5 Pt 1): 869–874.
- Swift SE, Tate SB, Nicholas J. Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: what is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189(2): 372–7; discussion 377.
- Lo TS, Jaili S, Uy-Patrimonio MaC, et al. Transvaginal management of severe pelvic organ prolapse in nulliparous women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017; 43(3): 543–550.
- Rortveit G, Brown JS, Thom DH, et al. Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse: prevalence and risk factors in a population-based, racially diverse cohort. Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109(6): 1396–1403.
- Whitcomb EL, Rortveit G, Brown JS, et al. Racial differences in pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(6): 1271–1277.
- Carley M, Schaffer J. Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women with Marfan or Ehlers-Danlos syndrome. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2000; 182(5): 1021–1023.
- Lince SL, van Kempen LC, Vierhout ME, et al. A systematic review of clinical studies on hereditary factors in pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23(10): 1327–1336.
- Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L. Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188(1): 108–115.
- Jones KA, Shepherd JP, Oliphant SS, et al. Trends in inpatient prolapse procedures in the United States, 1979-2006. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202(5): 501.e1–501.e7.
- Notten KJB, Vergeldt TFM, van Kuijk SMJ, et al. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26(11): 1559–1573.
- Sze EHM, Sherard GB, Dolezal JM. Pregnancy, labor, delivery, and pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 100(5 Pt 1): 981–986.
- Mant J, Painter R, Vessey M. Epidemiology of genital prolapse: observations from the Oxford Family Planning Association Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104(5): 579–585.
- Moalli PA, Jones Ivy S, Meyn LA, et al. Risk factors associated with pelvic floor disorders in women undergoing surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 101(5 Pt 1): 869–874.
- Whitcomb EL, Rortveit G, Brown JS, et al. Racial differences in pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(6): 1271–1277.
- Tinelli A, Malvasi A, Rahimi S, et al. Age-related pelvic floor modifications and prolapse risk factors in postmenopausal women. Menopause. 2010; 17(1): 204–212.
- Swift S, Woodman P, O'Boyle A, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): the distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192(3): 795–806.
- Giri A, Hartmann KE, Hellwege JN, et al. Obesity and pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(1): 11–26.e3.
