Are hypertension and diabetes mellitus risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse?. (February 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Isık, Hatice; Aynıoglu, Oner; Sahbaz, Ahmet; Selimoglu, Refika; Timur, Hakan; Harma, Muge
• Is Part Of: European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology. Volume 197(2016:Feb.)
• Page Start: 59
• Page End: 62
• Publication Date: 2016-02
• Subjects: Pelvic organ prolapse -- Risk factor -- Hypertension -- Diabetes mellitus; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Reproductive health -- Periodicals; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Reproduction -- Periodicals; Obstétrique -- Périodiques; Gynécologie -- Périodiques; Reproduction -- Périodiques; Verloskunde; Gynaecologie; Voortplanting (biologie); Gynecology; Obstetrics; Reproduction; Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2015.11.035
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0301-2115

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is an important problem for women with multifactorial etiology. This study aims to determine the role of hypertension (HT) and diabetes mellitus (DM) in POP. Study design: The study included 586 women admitted to Bulent Ecevit University Hospital between September 2013 and April 2015 for hysterectomy, comprising 186 patients with POP and 400 patients without. The demographic characteristics, age, body mass index (BMI), obstetrical history, type of delivery, associated medical diseases, and benign gynecological diseases were recorded. HT, DM, or both together were particularly considered as coexisting medical diseases. Results: Median gravida, parity, and live birth numbers were significantly higher in POP patients (4 vs. 3, 3 vs. 2, and 3 vs. 2 respectively, p < 0.001). POP patients were more obese than POP-absent patients ( p < 0.001). Vaginal history of birth increased POP frequency to 25.8% with statistical significance ( p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups regarding coexisting endometritis, endometrial polyp, endometriosis, endometrial hyperplasia ( p > 0.05). There was a significant difference between groups regarding comorbid diseases ( p < 0.001). Logistic regression analysis for risk factors of POP revealed age, BMI, vaginal parturition, and co-morbidity with HT + DM together significantly increased POP risk ( p < 0.05). HT + DM together significantly increased risks with OR of 1.9 (1.1–3.16). Conclusions: In addition to multiple factors increasing POP risk, comorbidities as HT + DM together should be considered as risk factors. Patients with these comorbidities should be encouraged to change their lifestyles to prevent POP.