Ginekologia polska · 2018
Does Home Birth Reduce the Risk of Pelvic Organ Prolapse?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Peker Nuri, Erdem Baki, Kaban Alpaslan
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine the relationship between vaginal birth and the development of POP among women who deliv-ered 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.
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.