Cited by 40Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsMaternal and Perinatal Health InterventionsPregnancy-related medical research

Longitudinal study of quantitative changes in pelvic organ support among parous women.

Open access
Handa, Victoria L., Blomquist, Joan L., Roem, Jennifer, Muňoz, Alvaro·2018·American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology

Abstract

Background Pelvic organ prolapse is more common among parous (vs nulliparous) women and also more common after vaginal (vs cesarean) birth. However, very little is known about how childbirth affects the course and progression of the genital hiatus across a woman's life span. Objective The objective of the sttudy was to investigate the longitudinal, quantitative changes in pelvic organ support after childbirth, focusing on the impact of vaginal vs cesarean delivery. Study design This was a prospective longitudinal cohort study in which parous women were recruited 5-10 years from first delivery and followed up annually. Using data from annual pelvic organ prolapse quantification examinations, we considered changes in vaginal support at the anterior vaginal wall (point Ba), the vaginal apex (point C), and the posterior wall (point Bp). In univariate and multivariable models, we compared pelvic organ support between women who had delivered at least 1 child vaginally vs those delivered exclusively by cesarean. Other covariates considered included race, age at first delivery, and the size of the genital hiatus. For models of support at Ba and Bp, we also considered the independent association with apical support. For women who delivered vaginally, we also considered forceps birth. Results A total of 1224 women participated for a total of 7055 woman-visits. In multivariable models, vaginal birth was associated with significantly worse support 5 years from first delivery. Also, women with at least 1 vaginal birth had more rapid worsening of support at point C. The width of the genital hiatus was a significant independent predictor of worse support 5 years from delivery as well as the rate of change over time. In models that controlled for the genital hiatus, the strength of the impact of vaginal birth was attenuated. Conclusion Vaginal birth was associated with worse support 5 years from first delivery and with more rapid deterioration in support at the apex. Above and beyond the impact of vaginal birth, the size of the genital hiatus may be an independent marker for those at greatest risk of prolapse progression.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajog.2017.12.214

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Studies have suggested an association between pelvic floor disorders and race.

    “Race was also assessed, because studies have suggested an association between pelvic floor disorders and race.11,12”

    From Association of Delivery Mode With Pelvic Floor Disorders After Childbirth. (2018) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Results report a statistically marginal association between race and two measures of pelvic organ support among parous women. They do not establish an association between race and pelvic floor disorders broadly; the Results also say race had very little association with support overall and none with its rate of change. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 9 · Cited by 40

Authors
Handa, V. L., Blomquist, J. L., Roem, J., & Muňoz, A.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Greater Baltimore Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Handa, Victoria L.
Venue
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-03
Volume
218
Issue
3
Pages
320.e1-320.e7
ISSN
0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2779046752
Cited by
40
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4
FWCI
3.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01HD056275)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Maternal and Perinatal Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, pelvic organ support, vaginal delivery, cesarean section, genital hiatus, parous women, childbirth, pelvic floor
MeSH terms
Adult, Cesarean Section, Extraction, Obstetrical, Female, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Maternal Age, Parity, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Vagina, Body Mass Index, Parturition, Racial Groups, Pelvic Organ Prolapse, Gynecological Examination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review