Pelvic organ support in nulliparous pregnant and nonpregnant women: A case control study

Objective: Our purpose was to compare pelvic organ support in nulliparous pregnant and nonpregnant women at a single institution. Study Design: This was a case-control study. Pregnant patients and nonpregnant control subjects were matched according to age and race. Subjects underwent pelvic organ su...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAmerican journal of obstetrics and gynecology Vol. 187; no. 1; pp. 99 - 102
Main Authors O'Boyle, Amy L., Woodman, Patrick J., O'Boyle, John D., Davis, Gary D., Swift, Steven E.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Philadelphia, PA Elsevier Inc 01.07.2002
Elsevier
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Objective: Our purpose was to compare pelvic organ support in nulliparous pregnant and nonpregnant women at a single institution. Study Design: This was a case-control study. Pregnant patients and nonpregnant control subjects were matched according to age and race. Subjects underwent pelvic organ support evaluation by use of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) examination as part of routine prenatal or gynecologic care.The Pearson χ2 statistic was used for statistical analysis, with a P value of 5% set for significance. Results: A total of 21 pregnant and 21 nonpregnant nulliparous women between the ages of 18 and 29 years were included. All patients in the nonpregnant group had a POPQ stage of 0 or 1, whereas 47.6% of the pregnant subjects had POPQ stage 2 (P <.001). Individual components of the POPQ examination were compared. Significant differences were noted for points Aa and Ba, Ap and Bp, and PB and TVL. Conclusions: In nulliparous women, pregnancy is associated with increased POPQ stage compared with nonpregnant control subjects. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:99-102.)
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0002-9378
1097-6868
DOI:10.1067/mob.2002.125734