Obesity: how much does it matter for female pelvic organ prolapse?
Author
dc.contributor.author
Young, Natharnia
Author
dc.contributor.author
Atan, Ixora Kamisan
Author
dc.contributor.author
Guzmán Rojas, Rodrigo
Author
dc.contributor.author
Dietz, Hans P.
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2018-12-26T22:47:55Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2018-12-26T22:47:55Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2018-08
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
Int Urogynecol J (2018) 29(8):1129–1134
es_ES
Identifier
dc.identifier.issn
0937-3462
Identifier
dc.identifier.other
10.1007/s00192-017-3455-8
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/159207
Abstract
dc.description.abstract
The objective was to determine the association between body mass index (BMI) and symptoms and signs of female pelvic organ prolapse (POP).
An observational cross-sectional study of 964 archived datasets of women seen for symptoms and signs of lower urinary tract and pelvic organ dysfunction between September 2011 and February 2014 at a tertiary urogynaecology centre in Australia was carried out. An in-house standardised interview, the International Continence Society Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (ICS POP-Q) and 4-D translabial ultrasound, followed by analysis of ultrasound volumes for pelvic organ descent and hiatal area on Valsalva, were performed, blinded against other data.
There is a positive association between BMI and posterior compartment prolapse on clinical examination and ultrasound imaging, but not for the anterior and central compartments. There was no association with prolapse symptom bother and a negative association with symptoms of prolapse.
In this observational study, we found a strong association between all tested measures of posterior compartment descent and BMI, both clinical and on imaging.