The influence of pregnancy, parity, and mode of delivery on urinary incontinence and prolapse surgery—a national register study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of vaginal delivery, parity, and pregnancy on the pelvic floor remain uncertain and controversial issues. In comparison with studies using self-reported symptoms, surgical register data may offer a more valid means for evaluating the relative influence of these risk factors. OBJECTIVE: This study used data from 3 high-quality nationwide registers, namely the Swedish National Quality Register of Gynecological Surgery, the Swedish Medical Birth Register, and the Total Population Register, to evaluate the contribution of vaginal and cesarean delivery, parity, and factors not related to childbirth to the long-term risk for reconstructive urogenital surgery. STUDY DESIGN: This was a register-based linkage study among women aged ≥45 years who underwent urinary incontinence or prolapse surgery from 2010 to 2017. This surgical cohort was divided into nulliparous women, women with ≥1 cesarean deliveries only, those with ≥1 vaginal deliveries, and according to the number of births. A corresponding reference group was constructed based on women born in 1960 from the Total Population Register (n=2,309,765). The Swedish Medical Birth Register was used to determine the rate of women with cesarean and vaginal delivery and their respective parity. Absolute and relative risk were presented per 1000 women with 95% confidence intervals. Pairwise differences were analyzed with Fisher exact tests and the Mann-Whitney U test for dichotomous and continuous variables. The trend between ≥3 ordered categories of dichotomous variables was analyzed with Mantel-Haenszel statistics. RESULTS: A total of 39,617 women underwent prolapse surgery and 20,488 underwent incontinence surgery. Among women with prolapse surgery, 97.8% had ≥1 vaginal delivery, 0.4% had ≥1 cesarean delivery only, and 1.9% were nullipara. Corresponding figures for those with incontinence surgery were 93.1%, 2.6%, and 4.3%, respectively. Women with vaginal deliveries were overrepresented in the prolapse surgery (relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.24; P<.001) and incontinence surgery groups (relative risk, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.19; P<.001). Nulliparous and cesarean delivered women were underrepresented in the prolapse surgery (relative risk, 0.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.15 and relative risk 0.055; 95% confidence interval, 0.046-0.065; all P<.001) and incontinence surgery groups (relative risk, 0.31; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.33 and relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.43). The absolute risk for prolapse surgery was lowest after cesarean delivery (0.09 per 1000 women; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.11) and differed by a factor of 23 (absolute risk, 2.11 per 1000 women; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-2.13) from that after vaginal birth. The absolute risk for prolapse and incontinence surgery increased consistently with parity after vaginal births. This trend was not observed after cesarean delivery, which is on par with that of nulliparous women. The first vaginal birth contributed the highest increase in the absolute risk for pelvic organ prolapse surgery (6-fold) and stress urinary incontinence surgery (3-fold). The second vaginal birth contributed the lowest increase in the absolute risk for pelvic organ prolapse surgery (∼1/3 of the first vaginal birth) and for stress urinary incontinence surgery (∼1/10 of the first vaginal birth). CONCLUSION: Surgery for urinary incontinence and prolapse was almost exclusively related to vaginal parity. The risk for prolapse surgery increased consistently with parity after vaginal births but not after cesarean delivery, whereas the risk associated with cesarean delivery was on par with that of nulliparous women. Thus, cesarean delivery seems to offer protection from the need for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence surgery later in life.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».