Journal of Urology and Research

Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Comparative Study between Hospital and Home Childbirth in Women from the Brazilian Amazon

Research Article | Open Access | Volume 9 | Issue 1

  • 1. Medical School, Federal University of Amapá, Brazil
  • 2. Department of Gynecology, Federal University of Amapá, Brazil
+ Show More - Show Less
Corresponding Authors
Aljerry Dias DO RÊGO, Department of Gynecology, Federal University of Amapá, Juscelino Kubitschek Road, Macapá, Amapá, Brazil, Tel: +55964009290; Email: aljerry@uol.com.br

Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), is a condition associated with the descent of pelvic floor organs of complex and multifactorial etiology, which implies losses in social, sexual, and physical life.

Objective: To analyze the influence of parity, place (hospital or home), and type of childbirth with the degree of POP, through the Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q), staging in women in Amapá State.

Methods: A cross-sectional and quantitative study was conducted in the Basic Health Unit - Polyclinic of the Federal University of Amapá, collecting epidemiological data and evaluating the POP-Q in 377 women. Data were collected from February to November 2013.

Results: 31.6% of women had no genital prolapse (POP 0), and only 7.4% with POP grade 3. The increase in the average number of children establishes a direct relationship with the worsening of prolapse, where POP 2 and 3 were present in 32% of multiparous women and only 2.9% of non-multiparous women. For patients who had only a cesarean childbirth, POP 3 was not observed, while 7% of patients with vaginal delivery presented POP grade 3. The history of home birth was more related to POP 2 and 3 than the history of hospital delivery.

Conclusion: Multiparity, Vaginal childbirth, and Home birth were directly related to the increased degree of genital prolapse


Pelvic organ prolapse, Place of labor, Type of labor, Parity

Cite this article

GOMES RB, dos Santos OLIVEIRA VF, de LUCENA LS, DO RÊGO AD (2022) Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Comparative Study between Hospital and Home Childbirth in Women from the Brazilian Amazon. J Urol Res 9(1): 1131.


Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP), is a condition associated with the descent of the anterior and/or posterior vaginal wall as well as the cervix or vaginal dome after hysterectomy [1,2].

Although the etiology of POP is considered complex and multifactorial, some risk factors classically predispose to its appearances, such as age, connective tissue disorders, multiparity, vaginal birth, menopause, genetic predisposition, obesity, or other factors linked to increased intra-abdominal pressure [2-4].

POP becomes increasingly more frequent as the demographic transition advances with the increase of the elderly population [5]. It is estimated that about 75% of women between 45 and 85 years of age have some degree of prolapse [6] and it is known that the incidence during the clinical examination can vary from 14 to 50% [7-9].

The prevalence of symptoms, however, is much lower (3 - 6%)[10]. When present, symptoms can be associated with the structures involved in the prolapse, such as seeing or feeling a vaginal bulge, or with pelvic floor dysfunction, such as urinary, defecatory, or sexual complaints[2], and impose a high negative impact on the quality of life of women [11].

The clinical evaluation of POP is performed by gynecological physical examination, using a standardized system, the Pelvic Organ Prolapse- Quantification (POP-Q), referenced by the International Urogynecological Association (IUGA), and the International Continence Society (ICS)[1,12]. The evaluation of genital prolapse is done from a fixed anatomic point, the hymenal caruncle (zero position). From this point, positions are given in centimeters, with negative numbers in locations above the hymen and positive numbers when distal to the hymen. Six dynamic points are evaluated, being identified by letters such as anterior vaginal wall (Aa/Ba), the posterior vaginal wall (Ap/ Bp), the uterine dome or cervix (C), and the posterior fornix of the vagina (D). Added to these are three static points: the genital hiatus (HG), perineal body (PC), and total vaginal length (CVT) [1,12] (Figure 1).

Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System.

Figure 1 Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System

It is important to note that published studies comparing the place of childbirth and the presence and/or severity of POP are rare.

The objective of this study was to analyze the influence of parity, type of delivery, and place of labor (hospital or home), on the degree of pelvic organ prolapse in women living in the State of Amapá (Amazon region of Brazil).


This is a quantitative cross-sectional study conducted on women from Amapá, at the Basic Health Unit- Polyclinic of the Federal University of Amapá (UNIFAP). Data collection was conducted between February and November 2013.

Women who came to the institution to undergo oncotic coloproctology and were aged ≥ 20 years were included, being excluded: pregnant women, women who had recently given birth up to 06 months, and women with anatomical restrictions. The sample consisted of 377 women. All volunteers signed the Informed Consent Form- ICF. The project was approved by the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), of the Federal University of Amapá - FR 347446/011.

The selected patients were evaluated through anamnesis to identify risk factors, such as parity, type of delivery (vaginal or cesarean), and place of delivery (home or hospital). They were also submitted to gynecological examination for anatomical evaluation of the pelvic organs by POP-Q classification.

In the POP-Q classification, two points on the anterior vaginal wall (Aa, Ba), two points on the apex of the vagina (C, D), and two points on the posterior wall of the vagina (Ap, Bp), were evaluated. Added to these six points were the total vaginal length (CVT), the genital hiatus (HG), and the perineal body length (CP). Point Aa is located in the midline of the anterior vaginal wall, 3 cm proximal to the external meatus of the urethra and point Ba, the most distal position from any part of the anterior vaginal wall, points Ap and Bp are similar to points Aa and Ba, with the difference that they are located in the posterior wall, while point C is the most distal part of the uterine cervix or the vaginal dome if the patient has undergone hysterectomy, and point D reflects the location of the posterior fornix in women who still have a cervix, this being omitted in the absence of a cervix.

In addition, the genital hiatus, defined as the midpoint of the external meatus of the urethra to the posterior midline at the height of the hymenal caruncles, the perineal body, which is the posterior margin of the genital hiatus to the midpoint of the anal orifice, and the total vaginal length, established as the distance from the caruncle of the hymenal to the deepest point of the vagina when points C or D are in their normal positions, were evaluated.

After the anatomical evaluations, the final staging of the genital prolapse of the women was performed based on the POP-Q staging. Grade 0 is associated with the absence of prolapse. Points Aa, Ap, Ba, and Bp are at- 3 cm, and points C and D are between CVT and CVT- 2 cm. In grade 1, the point of greatest prolapse is located up to 1cm above the hymen (-1cm). In grade 2, the point of greatest prolapse is located between -1cm and +1cm (between 1cm above and 1cm below the hymen). In grade 3, the point of greatest prolapse is more than 1cm below the hymen, but without total eversion. Finally, in grade 4, total eversion of the prolapsed organ occurs, in which the point of greatest prolapse is at least 2 cm less vaginal length (CVT-2) [1,12].

The results were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software (SPSS), Version 22. For qualitative variables, the analysis was performed by Fisher’s Exact Test and for the multiple comparative evaluations between the POP-Q groups and the quantitative variables, the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and Kruskal-Wallis test were used. The significance level used for the tests was 5%, or p<0.05.


The study sample was composed of 377 women.

Regarding the classification of POP-Q: 119 women (31.6%), with POP grade 0 (zero), 126 (33.4%), with POP grade 1, 104 (27.6%), women with POP grade 2 and only 28 interviewees (7.4%), had POP grade 3. It was not evidenced in patients with POP Grade 4. Therefore, from the sample studied, it was observed that 68.4% of women presented some degree of genital prolapse. Moreover, regarding the presence of symptomatic POP, that is, grades 2 and 3, it was present in 35% of the sample (Graph 1).

Characterization of the POP-Q classification of the women interviewed and submitted to gynecological physical examination at the Polyclinic of the Federal University of Amapá - UNIFAP. N:377.

Graph 1 Characterization of the POP-Q classification of the women interviewed and submitted to gynecological physical examination at the Polyclinic of the Federal University of Amapá - UNIFAP. N:377.

In a study with Amazon riverside women [14], the absence of POP was 21.4% of the sample, while POP 2 and 3 were present in 27.4% and 12%, respectively. Among Korean women [15], the highest prevalence was POP 1 (and there were no patients with POP 4. In a multicenter study16 with 3,730 Iranian women, most had POP 0 (47%). In another study [17] with 1004 women, the prevalence was 24% for POP 0, 38% POP 1, 35% POP 2 and only 2% with POP 3.

On the other hand, other studies have observed a predominance of higher grades in POP-Q, such as this randomized clinical trial [18] with 270 women, in which 62.9% had POP 2. In another study [19] with 477 women, 48.4% had POP 2, similar to what was found among indigenous peoples of the Xingu [20], where most had stage 2 (63.9%).

As for the characterization of the variables analyzed in the sample, regarding parity: 32 women were nulliparous (8.5%), 119 (31.6%), were non-multiparous (1 to 2 deliveries), and 226 (59.9%), women were multiparous (3 or more deliveries). As for the route of childbirth: 230 women had normal childbirth (66.7%), 39 with cesarean childbirth (11.3%), and 76 women (22.0% of the sample), with normal childbirth and cesarean childbirth. Therefore, 88.7% of the sample had a vaginal delivery. As for the place of labor, the majority (54.2%), had hospital childbirth and only 15% with exclusively home childbirth (Table 1).

Table 1: Characterization of women interviewed and submitted to gynecological physical examination at the Polyclinic of the Federal University of Amapá - UNIFAP. N:377.

  N% Average ± Dp Min-Max
Parity 3,9±3,1 0-17
Nulliparous 32(8,5)    
Non-Multiparous 119(31,6)    
Multiparous 226(59,9)    
Normal   4,25±2,99 1-17.
Cesaria   1,4±0,69 1-4
Hospital   2,98±2,10 1-12
Home   3,72±3,02q 1-17
Type of labor
Normal 230(66,7)    
Cesaria 39(11,3)    
Normal/Cesare 76(22,0)    
Place of childbirth    
Hospital 166(54,2)    
Home 46(15,0)    
Hospital/Domestic 94(30,7)    

(Table 2), all nulliparous women in our study had POP 0, of the non-multiparous 54.62% did not present genital prolapse (POP 0), and among the multiparous only 9.73%. As for symptomatic POP (stages 2 and 3), it was present in 53.53% of multiparous women and only in 9.2% of non-multiparous women. Thus showing that multiparity is a risk factor for genital prolapse and that the increase in the average number of children establishes a direct relation with the worsening of prolapse. A case-control study with 316 patients in São Paulo [21] found that the presence of at least one normal labor is an independent risk factor for genital prolapse (p-value <0.005, OD=7.22, 95%CI=1.84- 28.27). Moreover, when the mean parity and vaginal deliveries between the control group (n=209), and the case group (n= 107), were observed, they were 2.01 and 4.5; and 1.03 and 4.01, respectively, with a p-value for both <0.0001. Therefore, because of this, a direct relationship occurs between parity and vaginal childbirth.

Associating POP-Q with the route of labor shows that cesarean childbirth was more related to the absence of POP than vaginal childbirth. The presence of POP was infrequent among patients with only surgical labor and severe POP (stage 3), was absent in this group. In addition, normal birth was a relevant risk factor for the presence of pelvic floor dysfunctions, including symptomatic POP (stages 2 and 3).

Although the C-section (Cesarean birth), presented the highest number of women with an absence of prolapse (84%), when we analyzed the symptomatic POP, it is infrequent, being absent in patients with stage 3. On the other hand, vaginal childbirth was more evident in the patients of this group (stage 3), representing 10% of them (Table 2).

Table 2: Bivariate analysis of the association between POP-Q classification and parity classification, type of labor, and Place of labor of women interviewed and submitted to gynecological physical examination at the Polyclinic of the Federal University of Amapá - UNIFAP. N:377

  Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3  
  N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%) P-value
Parity         <0,001
Nulipara 32(8,5) 0(0,0) 0(0,0) 0(0,0)  
Not Multipara 65(17,2) 43(11,4) 9(2,4) 2(0,5)  
Multipara 22(5,8) 83(22,8) 95(26,8) 26(6,9)  
Type of labor         <0,001
Normal 44(12,8) 90(26,9) 72(20,9) 24(7,0)  
Cesaria 33(9,6) 5(1,5) 1(0,3) 0(0,0)  
Normal/Cesare 10(2,9) 31(9,3) 31(9,0) 4(1,2)  
Place of birth         <0,001
Hospital 44(14,4) 75(24,7) 41(13,4) 6(2,0)  
Home 4(1,3) 21(6,2) 15(4,9) 6(2,0)  
Hospital/Domestic 6(2,0) 25(8,2)q 47(15,4) 16(5,2)  

This data is in accordance with that found in the study [22] with Turkish patients in which women who had four or more vaginal deliveries were 11.7 times more likely to suffer from pelvic floor disorders, such as prolapse or incontinence.

Concerning the place of labor, it was observed that hospital birth was the most common in grades 0 and 1, with 26.5% and 45.1%, respectively. However, the hospital/household represented 26.5% and 50% for stages 2 and 3. It was also found that the absence of POP was more frequent in the home birth group than in the other categories. In addition, patients delivered at home had a higher frequency of symptomatic prolapse than the group delivered at a hospital (stages 2 or 3). Therefore home childbirth was a risk factor for symptomatic POP (Table 2).

This result corroborates the one developed with indigenous women in the Xingu River Park [20] in which a considerable percentage of 90.6% of home births and 64.7% with stage II/ II in the POP-Q was obtained. Similarly, the study with Amazon riverine women14 observed that the presence of POP 0 was 8.4% in multiparous patients delivered at home and 33.3% in multiparous patients delivered at a hospital, while this ratio was 4.7% and 16.3%, respectively.


When analyzing the behavior of each variable according to the POP-Q, being scored the increase in the average number of children as the worsening of prolapse, so in Stage 0 the average is 1.7 children and in Stage 3 is 8.2 children per woman. Similarly, in a normal childbirth, the same increase occurs, with an average of 2.4 children in Stage 0 to 8.0 children in Stage 3 (Table 3).

Table 3: Characterization of the variables of parity, type of labor and place of labor, and the POP-Q classification of women interviewed and submitted to gynecological physical examination at the Polyclinic of the Federal University of Amapá - UNIFAP. N:377.

    Mean ± SD Me-Max
POP- Q Stage 0 1,7±2,1 0-13
  Stage 1 3,5±1,8 1-10
  Stage 2 5,7±2,8 1-14
  Stage 3 8,2±3,7 2-17
POP- Q Stage 0 2,4±2,6 0-13
  Stage 1 3,2±1,8 1-10
  Stage 2 5,4±2,8 1-14
  Stage 3 8,0±3,6 2-17
POP- Q Stage 0 1,7±0,8 1-4
  Stage 1 1,3±0,5 1-3
  Stage 2 1,3±0,6 1-3
  Stage 3 1,0±0,0 1-1
POP- Q Hospital    
  Stage 0 1,9±1,9 1-12
  Stage 1 2,5±1,4 1-7
  Stage 2 3,7±2,2 1-11
  Stage 3 4,7±2,8 1-11
POP- Q Home    
  Stage 0 3,5±3,7 1-12
  Stage 1 3,1±1,9 1-8
  Stage 2 3,6±3,0 1-12
  Stage 3 5,5±4,0 1-17

These data are in agreement with the study carried out with women living in the Xingu Indigenous Park [20], where it was verified that most of them were multiparous or very multiparous (68.7%), and that 63.9% were in POP 2. Similarly, in the study carried out with women from the Amazon region [14], it was verified that 75.8% of the river-dwelling women were multiparous, presenting a mean of 5.1 normal deliveries, and this group presented a significant percentage of cases of POP-Q in stage 3 (p=0.02). Moreover, it is worth noting that this data differed in the group of women living in an urban center, associating lower average normal deliveries to the initial stage of POP-Q, so it was found that 53.4% were multiparous, with an average of 2.7 normal deliveries, of this 36.2% with POP 0 (p= 0.0004).

Moreover, in a study of 1,964 Turkish women [23], it was observed that additional vaginal deliveries increased the risk of prolapse (p < 0.001), and that each vaginal childbirth increased the probability of POP (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.12-1.35), after controlling for other factors. Thus, evaluating women who had only vaginal deliveries (n = 1298), the relationship of parity with POP was 1, 2, 3, and >4 births with 4.7, 8.7, 12.0, and 23.0%, respectively. Similarly, a 20-year follow-up of 17,032 women from England and Scotland [24,25], showed that parity was strongly associated with pelvic floor dysfunction; thus, comparing nulliparous women with women who had 1 and 2 children, respectively, the probability of POP was 4 and 8.4 times higher.

Thus, the results of this study are in agreement with most publications that have demonstrated a strong correlation between parity, birth route, and POP. Thus, as observed in a casecontrol study with 316 patients in São Paulo [21], found that the presence of at least one normal birth is an independent risk factor for genital prolapse (p-value <0.005, OD=7.22, 95%CI=1.84- 28.27). And, when observed the mean characteristics of parity and vaginal deliveries between the control group (n=209), and case group (n= 107), found 2.01 and 4.5; and 1.03 and 4.01, respectively, with a p-value for both <0.0001. Therefore, because of this, a direct relationship occurs between parity and vaginal birth.

Regarding the place of labor, hospital childbirth predominated with 166 cases (54.2%), followed by hospital and home childbirth with 94 (30.7%), and only home childbirth with 46 (15.0%). In a study conducted in the Amazon [14], POP 3 was present in 11.9% of riverbank women (75.8% delivered at home), and only 5.4% of urban women (20% delivered at home).

Furthermore, regarding the variable place of labor, in patients with home childbirth and POP 0, the mean parity was higher than that of patients with hospital childbirth, 3.5 and 1.9, respectively, showing possible protection of the pelvic floor in home birth, confirmed by the data from POP 3, where mean birth was lower in the hospital group (4.7), than among women delivered at home (5.5) (Table 3).

In cesarean childbirth, there is a slight decrease in the mean according to the increase in POP-Q, with Stage 0 having a mean of 1.7 cesarean deliveries and in Stage 3 the mean is 1.0 childbirth per woman (Table 3).

In studying the behavior of the variables that make the comparison between each stage (0, 1, 2, and 3), of POP with the factors parity, type of labor, and place of labor, a difference was observed with the stages of POP-Q since p< 5% for all variables. In addition, cesarean childbirth had less impact on POP staging when compared to the normal type in all stages of POP-Q. This result agrees with that presented in a study involving patients in São Paulo [21], which showed that cesarean childbirth is a protective factor for POP (OR=0.43; 95%CI=0.24-0.78). Especially, when comparing this type of labor between the two study groups, it was observed that in the control group the mean was 0.86, however, in the case group the mean number of cesarean sections was much lower (0.24), and the p-value was <0.0001 (Table 4).

Table 4: Multivariate analysis of the comparison between the POP-Q groups and the variables of parity, type of labor and place of labor, and the POP-Q classification of women interviewed and submitted to gynecological physical examination at the Polyclinic of the Federal University of Amapá - UNIFAP. N:377

  POP- Q  
  Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 P-value
PARITY 1,7±2,1 3,5±1,8 5,7±2,8 8,2±3,7 <0,001
Type of labor        
Normal 2,4±2,6 3,2±1,8 5,4±2,8 8,0±3,6 <0,001
Cesaria 1,7±0,8 1,3±0,5 1,3±0,6 1,0±0,0 0,024
Place of childbirth        
Hospital 1,9±1,9 2,5±1,4 3,7±2,2 4,7±2,8 <0,001
Home 3,5±3,7 3,1±1,9 3,6±3,0 5,5±4,0 0,037

Increased parity, normal childbirth, and home birth were statistically significant risk factors for the presence of symptomatic genital prolapse, in other words, POP 2 and 3 in Amapaense women.


1. Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) / International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016; 27: 165-194.

2. Jelovsek JE, Maher C, Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet. 2007; 369: 1027-1038.

3. Dietz HP. The aetiology of prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008; 19: 1323-1329.

4. Vergeldt TFM, Weemhoff M, IntHout J, Kluivers KB. Risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse and its recurrence: a systematic review. Int Urogynecol J. 2015; 26: 1559-1573.

5. Subak LL, Waetjen LE, Van Den Eeden S, Thom DH, Vittinghoff E, Brown JS. Cost of pelvic organ prolapse surgery in the United States. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98: 646-651.

6. Hove MCPS, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJC, SteegersTheunissen RPM, Burger CW, Vierhout ME. The prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse symptoms and signs and their relation with bladder and bowel disorders in a general female population. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct; 20: 1037-1045.

7. Glazener C, Elders A, MacArthur C, Lancashire RJ, Herbison P, Hagen S, et al. Childbirth and prolapse: Long-term associations with the symptoms and objective measurement of pelvic organ prolapse. BJOG. 2013; 120: 161-168.

8. Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M, Nielsen TF, Milsom I. Prevalence and risk factors for pelvic organ prolapse 20 years after childbirth: A national cohort study in singleton primiparae after vaginal or caesarean delivery. BJOG. 2013; 120: 152-160.

9. Smith FJ, Holman CDAJ, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 1096-1100.

10.Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24: 1783-1790.

11.Srikrishna S, Robinson D, Cardozo L, Cartwright R. Experiences and expectations of women with urogenital prolapse: A quantitative and qualitative exploration. BJOG. 2008; 115: 1362-1368.

12.Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Smith AR, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JOL, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 10-17.

13.Madhu C, Swift S, Moloney-Geany S, Drake MJ. How to use the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system? Neurourol Urodyn. 2018; 37: S39-S43.

14.Rego AD, Peterson TV, Bernardo WM, Bacat EC, Haddad JM. Comparison of stress urinary incontinence between urban women and women of indigenous origin in the brasilian Amazon. Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32: 395-402.

15.Seo JT, Kim JM. Pelvic Organ Support and Prevalence by Pelvic Organ Prolapse-Quantification (POP-Q) in Korean Women. J Urol. 2006; 175: 1769-1772.

16.Garshasbi A, Faghih-Zadeh S, Falah N. The status of pelvic supporting organs in a population of Iranian women 18 - 68 years of age and possible related factors. Arch Iran Med. 2006; 9: 124-128.

17.Swift S, Woodman P, Kahn M, Valley M, Bland D, Wang W, et al. Pelvic Organ Support Study (POSST): The distribution, clinical definition, and epidemiologic condition of pelvic organ support defects. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 795-806.

18.Nygaard I, Bradley C, Brandt D. Pelvic Organ Prolapse in older women: prevalence and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104: 489-497.

19.Swift SE, Tate SB, Nicholas J. Correlation of symptoms with degree of pelvic organ support in a general population of women: What is pelvic organ prolapse? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189: 372-377.

20.Araujo MP. Clinical and functional evaluation of the pelvic floor in Indian women residing in the Xingu Indigenous Park, Mato Grosso, Brazil. São Paulo. Tese [Doctorate in Sciences] - Universidade Federal de São Paulo; 2008.

21.Rodrigues AM, Oliveira LM, Martins KF, Roy CA, Sartori MGF, Girão MJBC, et al. Risk factors for genital prolapse in a Brazilian population. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2009; 31: 17-21.

22.Schaffer JI, Wai CY, Boreham MK. Etiology of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 48: 639-647.

23.Yeniel AO, Ergenoglu AM, Askar N, Itil IM, Meseri R. Delivery mode and pelvic organ prolapse. Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2013; 92: 847-851.

24.Mant J, Painter R, Vessey M. Epidemiology of genital prolapse: observations from the Oxford Family Planning Association Study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997; 104: 579-585.

25.Patel DA, Xu X, Thomason AD, Ransom SB, Ivy JS, DeLancey JOL. Childbirth and pelvic floor dysfunction: An epidemiologic approach to the assessment of prevention opportunities at delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 195: 23-28.

GOMES RB, dos Santos OLIVEIRA VF, de LUCENA LS, DO RÊGO AD (2022) Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Comparative Study between Hospital and Home Childbirth in Women from the Brazilian Amazon. J Urol Res 9(1): 1131.

Received : 25 Apr 2022
Accepted : 11 Jun 2022
Published : 17 Jun 2022
Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology
ISSN : 2379-948X
Launched : 2014
JSM Schizophrenia
Launched : 2016
Journal of Nausea
Launched : 2020
JSM Internal Medicine
Launched : 2016
JSM Hepatitis
Launched : 2016
JSM Oro Facial Surgeries
ISSN : 2578-3211
Launched : 2016
Journal of Human Nutrition and Food Science
ISSN : 2333-6706
Launched : 2013
JSM Regenerative Medicine and Bioengineering
ISSN : 2379-0490
Launched : 2013
JSM Spine
ISSN : 2578-3181
Launched : 2016
Archives of Palliative Care
ISSN : 2573-1165
Launched : 2016
JSM Nutritional Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3203
Launched : 2017
Annals of Neurodegenerative Disorders
ISSN : 2476-2032
Launched : 2016
Journal of Fever
ISSN : 2641-7782
Launched : 2017
JSM Bone Marrow Research
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2016
JSM Mathematics and Statistics
ISSN : 2578-3173
Launched : 2014
Journal of Autoimmunity and Research
ISSN : 2573-1173
Launched : 2014
JSM Arthritis
ISSN : 2475-9155
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Neck Cancer-Cases and Reviews
ISSN : 2573-1610
Launched : 2016
JSM General Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2573-1564
Launched : 2016
JSM Anatomy and Physiology
ISSN : 2573-1262
Launched : 2016
JSM Dental Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1548
Launched : 2016
Annals of Emergency Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1017
Launched : 2016
Annals of Mens Health and Wellness
ISSN : 2641-7707
Launched : 2017
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Health Care
ISSN : 2576-0084
Launched : 2018
Journal of Chronic Diseases and Management
ISSN : 2573-1300
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vaccines and Immunization
ISSN : 2378-9379
Launched : 2014
JSM Heart Surgery Cases and Images
ISSN : 2578-3157
Launched : 2016
Annals of Reproductive Medicine and Treatment
ISSN : 2573-1092
Launched : 2016
JSM Brain Science
ISSN : 2573-1289
Launched : 2016
JSM Biomarkers
ISSN : 2578-3815
Launched : 2014
JSM Biology
ISSN : 2475-9392
Launched : 2016
Archives of Stem Cell and Research
ISSN : 2578-3580
Launched : 2014
Annals of Clinical and Medical Microbiology
ISSN : 2578-3629
Launched : 2014
JSM Pediatric Surgery
ISSN : 2578-3149
Launched : 2017
Journal of Memory Disorder and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-319X
Launched : 2016
JSM Tropical Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2578-3165
Launched : 2016
JSM Head and Face Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3793
Launched : 2016
JSM Cardiothoracic Surgery
ISSN : 2573-1297
Launched : 2016
JSM Bone and Joint Diseases
ISSN : 2578-3351
Launched : 2017
JSM Bioavailability and Bioequivalence
ISSN : 2641-7812
Launched : 2017
JSM Atherosclerosis
ISSN : 2573-1270
Launched : 2016
Journal of Genitourinary Disorders
ISSN : 2641-7790
Launched : 2017
Journal of Fractures and Sprains
ISSN : 2578-3831
Launched : 2016
Journal of Autism and Epilepsy
ISSN : 2641-7774
Launched : 2016
Annals of Marine Biology and Research
ISSN : 2573-105X
Launched : 2014
JSM Health Education & Primary Health Care
ISSN : 2578-3777
Launched : 2016
JSM Communication Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3807
Launched : 2016
Annals of Musculoskeletal Disorders
ISSN : 2578-3599
Launched : 2016
Annals of Virology and Research
ISSN : 2573-1122
Launched : 2014
JSM Renal Medicine
ISSN : 2573-1637
Launched : 2016
Journal of Muscle Health
ISSN : 2578-3823
Launched : 2016
JSM Genetics and Genomics
ISSN : 2334-1823
Launched : 2013
JSM Anxiety and Depression
ISSN : 2475-9139
Launched : 2016
Clinical Journal of Heart Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7766
Launched : 2016
Annals of Medicinal Chemistry and Research
ISSN : 2378-9336
Launched : 2014
JSM Pain and Management
ISSN : 2578-3378
Launched : 2016
JSM Women's Health
ISSN : 2578-3696
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in HIV or AIDS
ISSN : 2374-0094
Launched : 2013
Journal of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity
ISSN : 2333-6692
Launched : 2013
Journal of Substance Abuse and Alcoholism
ISSN : 2373-9363
Launched : 2013
JSM Neurosurgery and Spine
ISSN : 2373-9479
Launched : 2013
Journal of Liver and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2379-0830
Launched : 2014
Journal of Drug Design and Research
ISSN : 2379-089X
Launched : 2014
JSM Clinical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2373-938X
Launched : 2013
JSM Bioinformatics, Genomics and Proteomics
ISSN : 2576-1102
Launched : 2014
JSM Chemistry
ISSN : 2334-1831
Launched : 2013
Journal of Trauma and Care
ISSN : 2573-1246
Launched : 2014
JSM Surgical Oncology and Research
ISSN : 2578-3688
Launched : 2016
Annals of Food Processing and Preservation
ISSN : 2573-1033
Launched : 2016
Journal of Radiology and Radiation Therapy
ISSN : 2333-7095
Launched : 2013
JSM Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
ISSN : 2578-3572
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical Pathology
ISSN : 2373-9282
Launched : 2013
Annals of Cardiovascular Diseases
ISSN : 2641-7731
Launched : 2016
Journal of Behavior
ISSN : 2576-0076
Launched : 2016
Annals of Clinical and Experimental Metabolism
ISSN : 2572-2492
Launched : 2016
Clinical Research in Infectious Diseases
ISSN : 2379-0636
Launched : 2013
JSM Microbiology
ISSN : 2333-6455
Launched : 2013
Journal of Family Medicine and Community Health
ISSN : 2379-0547
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pregnancy and Care
ISSN : 2578-336X
Launched : 2017
JSM Cell and Developmental Biology
ISSN : 2379-061X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Aquaculture and Research
ISSN : 2379-0881
Launched : 2014
Clinical Research in Pulmonology
ISSN : 2333-6625
Launched : 2013
Journal of Immunology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6714
Launched : 2013
Annals of Forensic Research and Analysis
ISSN : 2378-9476
Launched : 2014
JSM Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
ISSN : 2333-7109
Launched : 2013
Annals of Breast Cancer Research
ISSN : 2641-7685
Launched : 2016
Annals of Gerontology and Geriatric Research
ISSN : 2378-9409
Launched : 2014
Journal of Sleep Medicine and Disorders
ISSN : 2379-0822
Launched : 2014
JSM Burns and Trauma
ISSN : 2475-9406
Launched : 2016
Chemical Engineering and Process Techniques
ISSN : 2333-6633
Launched : 2013
Annals of Clinical Cytology and Pathology
ISSN : 2475-9430
Launched : 2014
JSM Allergy and Asthma
ISSN : 2573-1254
Launched : 2016
Journal of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
ISSN : 2334-2307
Launched : 2013
Annals of Sports Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2379-0571
Launched : 2014
JSM Sexual Medicine
ISSN : 2578-3718
Launched : 2016
Annals of Vascular Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-9344
Launched : 2014
JSM Biotechnology and Biomedical Engineering
ISSN : 2333-7117
Launched : 2013
Journal of Hematology and Transfusion
ISSN : 2333-6684
Launched : 2013
JSM Environmental Science and Ecology
ISSN : 2333-7141
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cardiology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2333-6676
Launched : 2013
JSM Nanotechnology and Nanomedicine
ISSN : 2334-1815
Launched : 2013
Journal of Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
ISSN : 2475-9473
Launched : 2016
JSM Ophthalmology
ISSN : 2333-6447
Launched : 2013
Journal of Pharmacology and Clinical Toxicology
ISSN : 2333-7079
Launched : 2013
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health
ISSN : 2374-0124
Launched : 2013
Medical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN : 2333-6439
Launched : 2013
Annals of Pediatrics and Child Health
ISSN : 2373-9312
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Pharmaceutics
ISSN : 2379-9498
Launched : 2014
JSM Foot and Ankle
ISSN : 2475-9112
Launched : 2016
JSM Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementia
ISSN : 2378-9565
Launched : 2014
Journal of Addiction Medicine and Therapy
ISSN : 2333-665X
Launched : 2013
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Research
ISSN : 2378-931X
Launched : 2013
Annals of Public Health and Research
ISSN : 2378-9328
Launched : 2014
Annals of Orthopedics and Rheumatology
ISSN : 2373-9290
Launched : 2013
Journal of Clinical Nephrology and Research
ISSN : 2379-0652
Launched : 2014
Annals of Community Medicine and Practice
ISSN : 2475-9465
Launched : 2014
Annals of Biometrics and Biostatistics
ISSN : 2374-0116
Launched : 2013
JSM Clinical Case Reports
ISSN : 2373-9819
Launched : 2013
Journal of Cancer Biology and Research
ISSN : 2373-9436
Launched : 2013
Journal of Surgery and Transplantation Science
ISSN : 2379-0911
Launched : 2013
Journal of Dermatology and Clinical Research
ISSN : 2373-9371
Launched : 2013
JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology
ISSN : 2373-9487
Launched : 2013
Annals of Nursing and Practice
ISSN : 2379-9501
Launched : 2014
JSM Dentistry
ISSN : 2333-7133
Launched : 2013
Author Information X