» Articles » PMID: 19935029

Racial Differences in Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Overview
Journal Obstet Gynecol
Date 2009 Nov 26
PMID 19935029
Citations 54
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To compare the estimated prevalence of, risk factors for, and level of bother associated with subjectively reported and objectively measured pelvic organ prolapse in a racially diverse cohort.

Methods: The Reproductive Risks for Incontinence Study at Kaiser 2 is a population-based cohort study of 2,270 middle-aged and older women. Symptomatic prolapse was self-reported, and bother was assessed on a five-point scale. In 1,137 women, prolapse was measured with the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent association of prolapse and race while controlling for risk factors.

Results: The participants' mean (standard deviation) age was 55 (9) years, and 44% were white, 20% were African American, 18% were Asian American, and 18% were Latina or other race. Seventy-four women (3%) reported symptomatic prolapse. In multivariable analysis, the risk of symptomatic prolapse was higher in white (prevalence ratio 5.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.89-15.12) and Latina (prevalence ratio 4.89, 95% CI 1.64-14.58) compared with African-American women. Race was not associated with report of moderate to severe bother. Degree of prolapse by POP-Q stage was similar across all racial groups; however, the risk of the leading edge of prolapse at or beyond the hymen was higher in white (prevalence ratio 1.40, 95% CI 1.02-1.92) compared with African-American women.

Conclusion: Compared with African-American women, Latina and white women had four to five times higher risk of symptomatic prolapse, and white women had 1.4-fold higher risk of objective prolapse with leading edge of prolapse at or beyond the hymen.

Level Of Evidence: II.

Citing Articles

Investigating Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Disparities in Pelvic Organ Prolapse Surgery.

DeAndrade S, DePorto K, Crawford K, Saporito L, Nguyen A, Yazdany T Urogynecology (Phila). 2025; 31(3):174-182.

PMID: 39760186 PMC: 11902576. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000001633.


Unveiling the depths of pelvic organ prolapse: From risk factors to therapeutic methods (Review).

Gao J, Li Y, Hou J, Wang Y Exp Ther Med. 2024; 29(1):11.

PMID: 39582942 PMC: 11582525. DOI: 10.3892/etm.2024.12761.


MRI-Based Structural Failure Comparison between Chinese and American White Women With Prolapse: A Case-Control Study.

Xie B, Nandikanti L, Swenson C, Wu J, Liu T, Yang X Int Urogynecol J. 2024; 36(2):363-371.

PMID: 39560762 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-05945-7.


Genetics of Female Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Up to Date.

Li Y, Li Z, Li Y, Gao X, Wang T, Huang Y Biomolecules. 2024; 14(9).

PMID: 39334862 PMC: 11430778. DOI: 10.3390/biom14091097.


Pelvic Floor Disorders in Black Women: Prevalence, Clinical Care, and a Strategic Agenda to Prioritize Care.

Carter-Brooks C, Brown O, Ackenbom M Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2024; 51(1):157-179.

PMID: 38267125 PMC: 11093648. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2023.11.002.


References
1.
Bradley C, Nygaard I . Vaginal wall descensus and pelvic floor symptoms in older women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 106(4):759-66. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000180183.03897.72. View

2.
Burgio K, Locher J, Zyczynski H, Hardin J, Singh K . Urinary incontinence during pregnancy in a racially mixed sample: characteristics and predisposing factors. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 1996; 7(2):69-73. DOI: 10.1007/BF01902375. View

3.
Krieger N . Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of a census-based methodology. Am J Public Health. 1992; 82(5):703-10. PMC: 1694121. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.82.5.703. View

4.
Sewell C, Chang E, Sultana C . Prevalence of genital prolapse in 3 ethnic groups. J Reprod Med. 2007; 52(9):769-73. View

5.
Thom D, Van Den Eeden S, Ragins A, Wassel-Fyr C, Vittinghof E, Subak L . Differences in prevalence of urinary incontinence by race/ethnicity. J Urol. 2006; 175(1):259-64. PMC: 1557354. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00039-X. View