Cited by 3,335Pelvic floor disorders treatmentsUterine Myomas and TreatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research

Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence

OLSEN, A, SMITH, V, BERGSTROM, J, COLLING, J, CLARK, A·1997·Obstetrics & Gynecology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence in a population-based cohort, and to describe their clinical characteristics. METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study included all patients undergoing surgical treatment for prolapse and incontinence during 1995; all were members of Kaiser Permanente Northwest, which included 149,554 women age 20 or older. A standardized data-collection form was used to review all inpatient and outpatient charts of the 395 women identified. Variables examined included age, ethnicity, height, weight, vaginal parity, smoking history, medical history, and surgical history, including the preoperative evaluation, procedure performed, and details of all prior procedures. Analysis included calculation of age-specific and cumulative incidences and determination of the number of primary operations compared with repeat operations performed for prolapse or incontinence. RESULTS: The age-specific incidence increased with advancing age. The lifetime risk of undergoing a single operation for prolapse or incontinence by age 80 was 11.1%. Most patients were older, postmenopausal, parous, and overweight. Nearly half were current or former smokers and one-fifth had chronic lung disease. Reoperation was common (29.2% of cases), and the time intervals between repeat procedures decreased with each successive repair. CONCLUSION: Pelvic floor dysfunction is a major health issue for older women, as shown by the 11.1% lifetime risk of undergoing a single operation for pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence, as well as the large proportion of reoperations. Our results warrant further epidemiologic research in order to determine the etiology, natural history, and long-term treatment outcomes of these conditions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00058-6

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
OLSEN, A., SMITH, V, BERGSTROM, J., COLLING, J., & CLARK, A.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
Corresponding author
OLSEN, A
Venue
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Published
1997-04
Volume
89
Issue
4
Pages
501-506
ISSN
0029-7844 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2015635389
Cited by
3,335
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 94 · 2024: 102 · 2023: 91 · 2022: 117 · 2021: 127 · 2020: 154 · 2019: 136 · 2018: 133 · 2017: 154 · 2016: 158 · 2015: 131 · 2014: 170 · 2013: 162 · 2012: 220
FWCI
8.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Keywords
pelvic organ prolapse, urinary incontinence, pelvic floor dysfunction, surgical incidence, lifetime risk, reoperation, postmenopausal women, smoking, chronic lung disease, parity, Kaiser Permanente Northwest
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Urinary Incontinence, Uterine Prolapse, Cohort Studies, Incidence

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