Prolapsus uteri ile epidemiyolojik faktörlerin ilişkisi: Beş yıllık vakaların retrospektif analizi

Amaç: Prolapsus uteri tanılı hastalarda epidemiyolojik faktörlerin prolapsusun şiddeti ile ilişkisinin araştırılması amaçlandı. Yöntem ve Gereç: 2004-2009 yılları arasında Ege Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Kadın Hastalıkları ve Doğum kliniğine başvuran ve prolapsus tanısı almış 235 olgu retrospektif olarak taranarak epidemiyolojik ve klinik veriler elde edildi. Total prolapsuslu 36 olgu çalışma grubunu oluştururken, çeşitli derecelerde prolapsusa sahip geri kalan olgular (n=199) kontrol grubunu oluşturdu. Çalışmamızda 36 total prolapsuslu olgu çalışma grubunu ve diğer 199 hasta da kontrol grubunu oluşturdu. Klinik korelasyonlar yaş, parite, pelvik operasyon öyküsü, sezaryen öyküsü, reprodüktif süre ve sigara öyküsünü içermekteydi. Bulgular: Çalışma grubunun yaş ortalaması 66,75 ve kontrol grubunun yaş ortalaması 59,84 idi. Çalışma grubundaki hastaların yaş ortalaması istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olarak daha ileri bulundu (p

Relationship between prolapsus uteri and epidemiological factors: Retrospective analysis of five year cases

Aim: To investigate the relationship between the degree of prolapsus uteri and epidemiological factors. Material and Methods: 235 patients who admitted to Ege University School of Medicine Obstetrics and Gynecology clinic between 2004- 2009 with the diagnose of prolapsus uteri were investigated about epidemiologic and clinical parameters. 36 cases with total prolapsus were study group whereas the rest with variable degree of other stages were control group (n=199). Clinical correlations were age, parity, previous pelvic operation, previous ceaserean section, reproductive period and smoking. Results: The ages were mean 66.75 in the study group whereas it was mean 59.84 in the control group. The mean age was statistically significant higher in the study group (p< 0.05). The mean reproductive period was 34.63 years in the study group, whereas it was mean 34.55 in the control group. There was no statistically significant difference about reproductive period between two groups. The mean parity was 3 in the study group whereas it was mean 2 in the control group. There was no significant difference about parity between both groups (p> 0.05), however the number of grand-multiparous women were significantly higher in the study group (p< 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between both groups about the number of previous pelvic operations and previous cesarean sections (p> 0.05). Conclusion: Aging and grand-multiparity are predisposing factors for total prolapsus uteri. Studies with wide patient populations with all degrees of prolapsus are needed for accurate results.

PDF

___

1) Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic organ dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:10–17
2) Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GC, Harris RL et al. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, and the American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996: 175:1467–1469
3) K.A. Gerten, A.D. Markland and L.K. Lloyd et al. Prolapse and incontinence surgery in older women. J Urol 179 2008, 2111–2118
4) Samuelsson EC, Victor FTA, Tibblin G, et al. Signs of genital prolapse in a Swedish population of women 20 to 59 of age and possible related factors. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999; 180: 299–305.
5) Handa VL, Garret E, Hendrix SDO, Gold E. Progression and remission of pelvic organ prolapse: A longitudinal study of menopausal women. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004; 190: 27-32.
6) Scherf C, Marison L, Fiander A, Ekpo G et al. Epidemiology of pelvic organ prolapse in rural Gambia West Africa 2002; 109: 431-436.
7) Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC et al Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89:501–506
8) Woodman PJ, Swift SE, O'Boyle AL, Valley MT et al. Prevalence of severe pelvic organ prolapse in relation to jobdescription and socioeconomic status: a multicenter cross-sectional study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2006;17:340-345.
9) MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, DH, The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. BJOG 2000;107:1460–1470
10) Jackson SR, Avery NC, Tarlton JF, Eckford SD et al. Changes in metabolism of collagen in genitourinary prolapse. Lancet 1996; 347:1658–1661
11) Chiaffarino F, Chatenoud L, Dindelli M, Meschia M et al Reproductive factors, family history, occupation and risk of urogenital prolapse. Eur J of Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999; 82:63–67
12) DeLancey J. The hidden epidemic of pelvic floor dysfunction: Achievable goals for improved prevention and treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 192: 1488–1495.
13) Jelovsek J, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet 2007; 369: 1027–1038.
14) Swift S, Woodman P, O'Boyle A, Kahn M 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: 795–806.
15) Mant J, Painter R, Vessey M. Epidemiology of genital prolapse: Observations from the Oxford Family Planning Association Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104: 579–585.
16) Hendrix S, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A et al. Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women's Health Initiative: Gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186: 1160–1166.
17) McLennan MT, Harris JK, Kariuki B, Meyer S. Family history as a risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008 ;19 :1063-1069.
18) Baessler K, O'Neill S, Battistutta D, Maher C. Prevalence, incidence, progression and regression and associated symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J 2006; 17: S70.
19) Dietz HP. Prolapse worsens with age, doesn't it? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2008;48: 587-591.
20) Norton PA. Pelvic floor disorder: the role of fascia and ligaments. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1993;36:926–938
21) Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001;184:1496–1503.
22) Chen HY, Chung YW, Lin WY, Chen WC et al. Progesterone receptor polymorphism is associated with pelvic organ prolapse risk.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009;88: 835-838.
23) Chen HY, Wan L, Chung YW, Chen WC et al. Estrogen receptor beta gene haplotype is associated with pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008 May;138:105-109.
24) Chen HY, Chung YW, Lin WY, Chen WC, Tsai FJ, Tsai CH.Estrogen receptor alpha polymorphism is associated with pelvic organ prolapserisk. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2008;19: 1159-1163.
25) Gill EJ, Hurt WG. Pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 1998;25:757-769.
26) Sze EH, Hobbs G. Relation between vaginal birth and pelvic organ prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88:200-203.
27) Rodrigues AM, de Oliveira LM, Martins Kde F, Del Roy CA. Castro R de A Risk factors for genital prolapse in a Brazilian population Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2009 ;31:17-21.
28) Larsson C, Källen K, Andolf E. Cesarean section and risk of pelvic organ prolapse: a nested case-control study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2009;200:243.
29) Groutz A, Rimon E, Peled S, Gold R, et al. Cesarean section: does it really prevent the development of postpartum stress urinary incontinence? A prospective study of 363 women one year after their first delivery. Neurourol Urodyn 2004;23:2-6.
30) Sze EH, Sherard GB 3rd, Dolezal JM. Pregnancy, labor, delivery, and pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:981-986.
31) Liebling RE, Swingler R, Patel RR, Verity L et al. Pelvic floor morbidity up to one year after difficult instrumental delivery and cesarean section in the second stage of labor: a cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:4-10.