The Relationship between Pelvic Organ Prolapse Stage and Urinary Incontinence

Abstract

Background: Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) and Urinary Incontinence (UI) are common pelvic floor disorders and significant healthcare concerns that significantly affect womens quality of life. Urinary incontinence is classified into several types: Urgency Urinary Incontinence (UUI), Stress Urinary Incontinence (SUI), and Mixed Urinary Incontinence (MUI), which involves features of both types. Prevalence of UI increases with age, affecting multiple aspects of patients’ lives. Given the frequent coexistence of  POP different stages and UI, this study aimed to evaluate their relationship. 

Method: This study included 99 women with UI, divided into three groups: those with UUI, SUI, and MUI. Demographic information was collected, and clinical assessments included the UDI-6 questionnaire, cough stress test and POP staging using the POP-Q system performed. Statistical analyses were applied to examine correlations by using SPSS version 26. This study analyzed the relationship between UI and POP stage, along with factors such as age, Body Mass Index (BMI), number of pregnancies, delivery history, delivery method, menopausal age.

Results: No statistically association was found between type of urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse stage (p<0.05). Also no statistical associations were observed between incontinence type and age, number of deliveries, number of pregnancies, delivery method, BMI, and age at menopause. However, menopausal status was significantly associated with UI type (p=0.009). Subgroup analysis revealed that in women under 50 years and nonmenopausal women, posterior compartment prolapse was significantly correlated with UI type, especially UUI and MUI (p<0.016). Logistic regression analysis did not identify any independent predictors.

Conclusion: Overall, POP stage was not associated with UI type. Nonetheless, posterior prolapse was significantly related to UI in younger and nonmenopausal women, highlighting the importance of subgroup-specific evaluation and the need for larger-scale studies