Prevalence of Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Its Relationship to Associated Risk Factors like Age, Parity and Mode of Delivery in a Rural Setting in Uttar Pradesh, India

  • Puja Jain Dewan Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Ambri Agarwal Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Keywords: Mode of delivery, Parity, Pelvic floor impact questionnaire 7, Pelvic organ prolapse, Visual analog scale


Background: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is one of the most common gynaecological problems in India among parous, aged women. Although POP is not life-threatening if left untreated it may lead to many social issues and also reduces the quality of life of women.
Materials and Methods: Fifty parous women aged between 20 and 70 years with POP were studied and compared with 50 asymptomatic (controlled) groups. Various parameters of clinical manifestations, types of POP, age distribution, parity, visual analog scale (VAS) score, pelvic floor impact questionnaire 7 (PFIQ-7) were compared in both groups.
Results: Mode of delivery - 37 (74%) vaginal delivery, 09 (18%) lower segment Caesarean section, 4 (8%) forceps delivery observed in POP women. Utero –vaginal prolapse 17 (34%) followed by cystocoele 11 (22%), cystocoele and rectocele 9 (18%). Age distribution – more incidences were in 51–60 age group followed by 41–50 age groups. VAS score, 29 mild, 14 moderate, 7 severe in POP group. PFIQ-7 was more in POP group. Poor Socio-economic status, advancing age, vaginal home delivery and medical problems like cough and constipation were associated with higher incidence of POP.
Conclusion: POP is strongly associated with age, parity and place of delivery. POP reduces the social status and quality of life if untreated.

Author Biographies

Puja Jain Dewan, Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Noida International Institute of Medical Sciences, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Ambri Agarwal, Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Noida International Institute of Medical Science, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India


1. Choi KH, Hong JY. Management of pelvic organ prolapsed.
Korean J Urol 2014;55:693-702.
2. Ellerkmann RM. Correlation of symptoms with location
and severity of pelvic organ prolapse Am J Obstet Gynecol
3. Moriston L, Larsen JP. Symptoms, bother and POP Q
in women referred with pelvic organ prolapsed. Int
Urogynaecol Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2003;14:122-7.
4. Nygaad I. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorder
in US women. JAMA 2008;300:1311-6.
5. Gyhagen M, Bullarbo M. Prevalence and risk factors of
pelvic organs prolapsed 20 year after child birth. BJOG
6. Giazener C, Elders A. Child birth and prolapsed long term
associations with the symptoms and objective measurement
of pelvic organ prolapsed. BJOG 2013;120:161-8.
7. Handa VL, Blomquist JL. Pelvic floor disorders after vaginal
birth; effect of episiotomy perianal laceration and operative
birth. Obstet Gynaecol 2012;119:233-9.
8. World Health Organisation. Measuring Reproductive
Morbidity. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 1989.
p. 1-39.
9. Mawajdeh SM. Prevalence and risk factors of genital
prolapsed. A multicentre study. Sandi Med J 2003;24:161-5.
10. Report for Selected Countries and Subjects. IMF. Available
from: [Last accessed on
2020 Aug 05].