18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Association of Delivery Mode With Pelvic Floor Disorders After Childbirth

      1 , 2 , 2 , 3
      JAMA
      American Medical Association (AMA)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          <div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-1"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e261">Question</h5> <p id="d9651273e263">Is childbirth delivery mode associated with risk of pelvic floor disorders over time?</p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-2"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e266">Findings</h5> <p id="d9651273e268">In this cohort study of 1528 women, compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery was associated with a significantly lower risk of stress urinary incontinence (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.46), overactive bladder (aHR, 0.51), and pelvic organ prolapse (aHR, 0.28); operative vaginal delivery was associated with a significantly higher risk of anal incontinence (aHR, 1.75) and pelvic organ prolapse (aHR, 1.88). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-3"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e271">Meaning</h5> <p id="d9651273e273">After childbirth, the risk of pelvic floor disorders varied by delivery mode.</p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-4"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e277">Importance</h5> <p id="d9651273e279">Pelvic floor disorders (eg, urinary incontinence), which affect approximately 25% of women in the United States, are associated with childbirth. However, little is known about the course and progression of pelvic floor disorders over time. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-5"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e282">Objective</h5> <p id="d9651273e284">To describe the incidence of pelvic floor disorders after childbirth and identify maternal and obstetrical characteristics associated with patterns of incidence 1 to 2 decades after delivery. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-6"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e287">Design, Setting, and Participants</h5> <p id="d9651273e289">Women were recruited from a community hospital for this cohort study 5 to 10 years after their first delivery and followed up annually for up to 9 years. Recruitment was based on mode of delivery; delivery groups were matched for age and years since first delivery. Of 4072 eligible women, 1528 enrolled between October 2008 and December 2013. Annual follow-up continued through April 2017. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-7"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e292">Exposures</h5> <p id="d9651273e294">Participants were categorized into the following mode of delivery groups: cesarean birth (cesarean deliveries only), spontaneous vaginal birth (≥1 spontaneous vaginal delivery and no operative vaginal deliveries), or operative vaginal birth (≥1 operative vaginal delivery). </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-8"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e297">Main Outcomes and Measures</h5> <p id="d9651273e299">Stress urinary incontinence (SUI), overactive bladder (OAB), and anal incontinence (AI), defined using validated threshold scores from the Epidemiology of Prolapse and Incontinence Questionnaire, and pelvic organ prolapse (POP), measured using the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification Examination. Cumulative incidences, by delivery group, were estimated using parametric methods. Hazard ratios, by exposure, were estimated using semiparametric models. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-9"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e302">Results</h5> <p id="d9651273e304">Among 1528 women (778 in the cesarean birth group, 565 in the spontaneous vaginal birth group, and 185 in the operative vaginal birth group), the median age at first delivery was 30.6 years, 1092 women (72%) were multiparous at enrollment (2887 total deliveries), and the median age at enrollment was 38.3 years. During a median follow-up of 5.1 years (7804 person-visits), there were 138 cases of SUI, 117 cases of OAB, 168 cases of AI, and 153 cases of POP. For spontaneous vaginal delivery (reference), the 15-year cumulative incidences of pelvic floor disorders after first delivery were as follows: SUI, 34.3% (95% CI, 29.9%-38.6%); OAB, 21.8% (95% CI, 17.8%-25.7%); AI, 30.6% (95% CI, 26.4%-34.9%), and POP, 30.0% (95% CI, 25.1%-34.9%). Compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery was associated with significantly lower hazard of SUI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.46 [95% CI, 0.32-0.67]), OAB (aHR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.34-0.76]), and POP (aHR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.19-0.42]), while operative vaginal delivery was associated with significantly higher hazard of AI (aHR, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.14-2.68]) and POP (aHR, 1.88 [95% CI, 1.28-2.78]). Stratifying by delivery mode, the hazard ratios for POP, relative to a genital hiatus size less than or equal to 2.5 cm, were 3.0 (95% CI, 1.7-5.3) for a genital hiatus size of 3 cm and 9.0 (95% CI, 5.5-14.8) for a genital hiatus size greater than or equal to 3.5 cm. </p> </div><div class="section"> <a class="named-anchor" id="ab-joi180141-10"> <!-- named anchor --> </a> <h5 class="section-title" id="d9651273e307">Conclusions and Relevance</h5> <p id="d9651273e309">Compared with spontaneous vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery was associated with significantly lower hazard for stress urinary incontinence, overactive bladder, and pelvic organ prolapse, while operative vaginal delivery was associated with significantly higher hazard of anal incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. A larger genital hiatus was associated with increased risk of pelvic organ prolapse independent of delivery mode. </p> </div><p class="first" id="d9651273e312">This cohort study describes the incidence of urinary incontinence, organ prolapse, and other pelvic floor disorders among women who gave birth via cesarean, spontaneous vaginal, or operative vaginal delivery. </p>

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction.

          This article presents a standard system of terminology recently approved by the International Continence Society, the American Urogynecologic Society, and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons for the description of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. An objective site-specific system for describing, quantitating, and staging pelvic support in women is included. It has been developed to enhance both clinical and academic communication regarding individual patients and populations of patients. Clinicians and researchers caring for women with pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction are encouraged to learn and use the system.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery.

            To estimate the lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) surgery, pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery, or both using current, population-based surgical rates from 2007 to 2011.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse.

              The aim was to determine the incidence and prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and describe how outcomes are reported. Every 4 years and as part of the Fifth International Collaboration on Incontinence we reviewed the English-language scientific literature after searching PubMed, Medline, Cochrane library and Cochrane database of systematic reviews, published up to January 2012. Publications were classified as level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials [RCT] or systematic reviews, level 2 (poor quality RCT, prospective cohort studies), level 3 (case series or retrospective studies) and level 4 (case reports). The highest level of evidence was utilised by the committee to make evidence-based recommendations based upon the Oxford grading system. A grade A recommendation usually depends on consistent level 1 evidence. A grade B recommendation usually depends on consistent level 2 and/or 3 studies, or "majority evidence" from RCTs. A grade C recommendation usually depends on level 4 studies or "majority evidence" from level 2/3 studies or Delphi processed expert opinion. A grade D "no recommendation possible" would be used where the evidence is inadequate or conflicting and when expert opinion is delivered without a formal analytical process, such as by Delphi . Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) when defined by symptoms has a prevalence of 3-6% and up to 50% when based upon vaginal examination. Surgery for prolapse is performed twice as commonly as continence surgery and prevalence varies widely from 6 to 18%. The incidence of POP surgery ranges from 1.5 to 1.8 per 1,000 women years and peaks in women aged 60-69. When reporting outcomes of the surgical management of prolapse, authors should include a variety of standardised anatomical and functional outcomes. Anatomical outcomes reported should include all POP-Q points and staging, utilising a traditional definition of success with the hymen as the threshold for success. Assessment should be prospective and assessors blinded as to the surgical intervention performed if possible and without any conflict of interest related to the assessment undertaken (grade C). Subjective success postoperatively should be defined as the absence of a vaginal bulge (grade C). Functional outcomes are best reported using valid, reliable and responsive symptom questionnaires and condition-specific HRQOL instruments (grade C). Sexual function is best reported utilising validated condition-specific HRQOL that assess sexual function or validated sexual function questionnaires such as the Pelvic Organ Prolapse/Incontinence Sexual Questionnaire (PISQ) or the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). The sexual activity status of all study participants should be reported pre- and postoperatively under the following categories: sexually active without pain, sexually active with pain or not sexually active (grade C). Prolapse surgery should be defined as primary surgery, and repeat surgery sub-classified as primary surgery different site, repeat surgery, complications related to surgery and surgery for non-prolapse-related conditions (grade C). Significant variation exists in the prevalence and incidence of pelvic organ prolapse surgery and how the outcomes are reported. Much of the variation may be improved by standardisation of definitions and outcomes of reporting on pelvic organ prolapse surgery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA
                JAMA
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                0098-7484
                December 18 2018
                December 18 2018
                : 320
                : 23
                : 2438
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gynecology, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Maryland
                [2 ]Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
                [3 ]Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                Article
                10.1001/jama.2018.18315
                6583632
                30561480
                29fbc276-9082-4d76-8e70-b506a3d33405
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article