The Prevalence of Pelvic Floor Hematoma After Vaginal Delivery.
Journal
Female pelvic medicine & reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 2154-4212
Titre abrégé: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101528690
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 06 2021
01 06 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
17
6
2020
medline:
11
1
2022
entrez:
17
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The goal of this study was to evaluate differences in levator ani hematoma formation within 3 days of delivery between adult women after their first vaginal delivery and adult women who have had multiple vaginal deliveries. This was a cross-sectional study at a single institution from 2013 to 2015 using a high-resolution endovaginal ultrasound transducer to identify postvaginal delivery hematoma formation. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between hematoma formation and vaginal parity while considering potential confounders including induction, vaginal operative delivery, vaginal birth after cesarean, fetal weight, fetal head circumference, race and ethnicity, body mass index, age at delivery, gestational age, and length of second-stage labor. Ninety women (46 vaginal-primiparous; 44 vaginal-multiparous) were included in this study. After adjusting for oxytocin use, length of second-stage labor, and body mass index, the odds of pelvic floor hematoma of 1000 mm3 or greater were 2.93 (95% confidence interval, 0.78-10.91) times greater in women after their first vaginal delivery compared with women with a history of multiple vaginal deliveries. The adjusted odds of pelvic floor hematoma of 1500 mm3 or greater were 6.02 (95% confidence interval, 1.09-33.24) times greater in vaginal-primiparous compared with vaginal-multiparous women. Although the prevalence of pelvic floor hematoma was higher in vaginal-primiparous women than vaginal-multiparous women after vaginal delivery, hematomas were present in both groups. Future prospective studies are needed to evaluate the additive effect of multiple vaginal deliveries on the pelvic floor.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32541297
pii: 01436319-202106000-00011
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000895
pmc: PMC7938706
mid: NIHMS1673817
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
393-397Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K01 HL135466
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : U54 GM104938
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 American Urogynecologic Society. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Int Urogynecol J. 2018 Nov;29(11):1637-1643
pubmed: 29564511
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Dec;40(6):693-8
pubmed: 22605560
BJOG. 2010 Nov;117(12):1485-92
pubmed: 20735379
BJOG. 2014 Aug;121(9):1164-71; discussion 1172
pubmed: 24548759
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Oct;106(4):707-12
pubmed: 16199625
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;114(1):66-72
pubmed: 19546760
Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Nov;25(11):1463-70
pubmed: 24737300
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Apr;96(4):426-431
pubmed: 28117880
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Jan;37(1):88-92
pubmed: 20814872
BJOG. 2012 Jan;119(1):51-60
pubmed: 21985531
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014 Apr;40(4):1037-45
pubmed: 24612399
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Feb;43(2):210-7
pubmed: 23893754
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;202(6):586.e1-6
pubmed: 20079479
Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jan;101(1):46-53
pubmed: 12517644
BJOG. 2013 Jan;120(2):205-211
pubmed: 23157458
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Apr;37(4):381-96
pubmed: 20814874
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jan;103(1):31-40
pubmed: 14704241