The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care
The distribution of pelvic organ support in a population of female subjects seen for routine gynecologic health care
复制标题
DOI：
10.1067/mob.2000.107583
复制
发表时间：
2000-08-01
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Swift, SE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Swift, SE
目的：这项研究是进行描述的分布盆腔器官的支持阶段的妇女在门诊妇科诊所的常规gynecologichealthcare.Study Design：这是一项观察性研究。在四个妇科门诊接受常规妇科保健的妇女被招募参加。获得知情同意后，收集关于产科史、病史和手术史的一般传记数据。然后，妇女进行了盆腔检查。根据盆腔器官脱垂量化系统测量和描述盆腔器官支持。结果：共调查497名妇女。平均年龄为44岁，范围为18至82岁。盆腔器官脱垂量化系统分期的总体分布如下：0期，6.4%; 1期，43.3%; 2期，47.7%; 3期，2.6%。检查的受试者均未发生盆腔器官脱垂量化系统4期脱垂。有统计学显著性趋势的变量增加盆腔器官脱垂量化系统阶段是年龄增长，增加妊娠和产次，阴道分娩的数量增加，分娩巨大儿，子宫切除术或盆腔器官脱垂手术史，绝经后状态和高血压。盆腔器官脱垂量化系统分期在人群中的分布呈钟形曲线，大多数受试者具有1期或2期支持。很少有受试者具有0级（极好的支撑）或3级（中度至重度骨盆支撑缺陷）结果。有一个统计学显着的趋势，增加盆腔器官脱垂量化系统阶段的支持妇女与许多历史上引用的病因因素的发展盆腔器官脱垂。
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to describe the distribution of pelvic organ support stages in a population of women seen at outpatient gynecology clinics for routine gynecologic health care.STUDY DESIGN: This was an observational study. Women seen for routine gynecologic health care at four outpatient gynecology clinics were recruited to participate. After informed consent was obtained general biographic data were collected regarding obstetric history, medical history, and surgical history. Women then underwent a pelvic examination. Pelvic organ support was measured and described according to the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Stages of support were evaluated by variable for trends with Pearson chi(2) statistics.RESULTS: A total of 497 women were examined. The average age was 44 years, with a range of 18 to 82 years. The overall distribution of pelvic organ prolapse quantification system stages was as follows: stage 0, 6.4%; stage 1,43.3%; stage 2, 47.7%; and stage 3, 2.6%. No subjects examined had pelvic organ prolapse quantification system stage 4 prolapse. Variables with a statistically significant trend toward increased pelvic organ prolapse quantification system stage were advancing age, increasing gravidity and parity, increasing number of vaginal births, delivery of a macrosomic infant, history of hysterectomy or pelvic organ prolapse operations, postmenopausal status, and hypertension.CONCLUSION: The distribution of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification system stages in the population revealed a bell-shaped curve, with most subjects having stage 1 or 2 support. Few subjects had either stage 0 (excellent support) or stage 3 (moderate to severe pelvic support defects) results. There was a statistically significant trend toward increased pelvic organ prolapse quantification system stage of support among women with many of the historically quoted etiologic factors for the development of pelvic organ prolapse.