Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Diabetes. Aug 15, 2024; 15(8): 1726-1733
Published online Aug 15, 2024. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v15.i8.1726
Table 1 Comparison of general information between the two groups of patients (mean ± SD)
Group
Height (cm)
Age (years)
Weight (kg)
Primiparas (cases)
Multiparas (cases)
Pregnant once (cases)
Pregnant ≥ 2 times (cases)
Weight gain during pregnancy (kg)
POP group (n = 52)163.74 ± 6.1128.28 ± 3.1559.88 ± 8.413913351720.05 ± 2.78
Non-POP group (n = 52)165.39 ± 6.5328.36 ± 2.6458.44 ± 9.593616371519.98 ± 2.59
Table 2 Comparison of levator ani muscle’s hiatus area, anteroposterior diameter, and lateral diameter between two groups of pelvic organ prolapse patients, mean ± SD
Group
Number
LH area (cm²)
LH anteroposterior diameter (cm)
LH lateral diameter (cm)
POP group5214.94 ± 1.586.69 ± 0.724.18 ± 0.56
Non-POP group5213.65 ± 0.975.15 ± 0.454.04 ± 0.17
Table 3 Pelvic organ prolapse quantification staging, anteroposterior diameter, and lateral diameter, mean ± SD
POP-Q stage
Number
LH area (cm²)
LH anteroposterior diameter (cm)
LH lateral diameter (cm)
I3514.58 ± 0.545.86 ± 0.413.57 ± 0.55
II815.73 ± 0.506.86 ± 0.624.28 ± 0.23
III716.23 ± 0.297.23 ± 0.184.75 ± 0.11
IV0000
Table 4 Incidence of macrosomia and stress urinary incontinence in two groups of pelvic organ prolapse patients, n (%)
Group
Number
Macrosomia
Stress urinary incontinence
Pelvic floor muscle weakness
POP group5223 (44.23)47 (90.38)35 (67.31)
Non-POP Group5227 (52.93)45 (86.54)26 (50.00)
Table 5 Multifactorial logistic regression analysis
Factor
β
SE
Wald statistic
95%CI
Age3.0050.5704.6981.542-14.399
Weight2.8190.7996.1121.778-40.774
Parity (number of births)1.0520.5013.3011.737-4.721
Gravidity (number of pregnancies)2.3180.4523.6862.467-3.741
Gestational weight gain1.4010.6723.5003.418-3.895