Abstract

Pelvic organ prolapse and anal incontinence in women: screening with a validated epidemiology survey

Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022 Sep;306(3):779-784. doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06510-7.Epub 2022 Mar 19.

 

Martina G Gabra 1Katelyn M Tessier 2Cynthia S Fok 3Nissrine Nakib 3Makinna C Oestreich 4John Fischer 5

 
     

Author information

1Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA. mgabra@arizona.edu.

2Biostatistics Core, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

3Department of Urology, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

4College of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

5Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Women's Health, University of Minnesota Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Abstract

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and anal incontinence (AI) in a Minnesota population using the Epidemiology of Prolapse and Incontinence Questionnaire (EPIQ). The secondary objective of this study was to determine the association of POP and AI with parity, age, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), and co-morbidities.

Methods: Women ≥ 18 years old attending the 2018 Minnesota State Fair were asked to fill out a web-based version of the EPIQ. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to investigate the association of POP and AI with the variables of interest.

Results: A total of 1426 women were included in the analysis. There was a 4.9% prevalence of POP and 14.9% prevalence of AI. POP was significantly associated with parity and higher BMI (p < 0.01 and p = 0.02, respectively). In this cohort, POP was not associated with older age, smoking, or presence of co-morbid conditions. Anal incontinence was associated with older age (p < 0.01), smoking status (p = 0.01), and presence of co-morbid conditions (p = 0.01) but was not associated with parity or higher BMI.

Conclusion: POP and AI were associated with some, but not all, of the variables tested, which differs from prior studies. In addition, the prevalence of POP and AI were different than rates reported in similar studies. This may suggest regional differences in prevalence of POP and AI.

 

© Copyright 2013-2024 GI Health Foundation. All rights reserved.
This site is maintained as an educational resource for US healthcare providers only. Use of this website is governed by the GIHF terms of use and privacy statement.