Uterovaginal Prolapse: The Sociodemographic profile and reproductive health service uptake in A Low Resource Setting, Calabar, Nigeria
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22317/jcms.v6i1.672Keywords:
Uterovaginal prolapse, reproductive health services, delayed presentation.Abstract
Objective: To determine the prevalence, sociodemographic profiles, utilization of reproductive health services and delay in seeking medical care of patient with uterovaginal prolapse in Calabar, Nigeria.
Methods: This was a retrospective study of women who presented with uterovaginal prolapse at University of Calabar Teaching Hospital, Calabar, Nigeria between 1st May 2009 and 1st June 2019. Patients case records were retrieved and analyzed. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS Version 22.
Results: The prevalence of genital prolapse was 0.3%. The mean age and parity were 60.19 ± 8.71 years and 6.31 ± 2.80, respectively. The mean duration of symptoms before presentation was 3.19 ± 2.16 years. Genital prolapse was commonest among age group 60-79 years (52.8%), parity 5-9 (66.7%), post-menopausal (97.2%), primary education (55.6%) and farmers (47.2%). Grade 3 uterovaginal prolapse was the commonest grade (58.3%). Most patients (86.1%) had symptoms of genital prolapse for less than 5 years before seeking medical treatment. The majority of patients had no antenatal care during their pregnancies (80.6%), no skilled attendant at deliveries (86.1%) and no contraceptive use during their reproductive years (77.8%). Participants with lower parity (1-4) (p=0.03), higher educational level (p˂ 0.001) and teachers/civil servants (p=0.043) presented earlier (less than 1 year) to the hospital.
Conclusion: There is poor utilization of reproductive health services among women who develop uterovaginal prolapse in our environment. Women with higher social status sought for help earlier. Increasing awareness of this condition and providing antenatal care, skilled birth attendants and contraceptive services will reduce the burden of this condition.
References
2. Oyiji EC, Dike EI, Anolue FC, Nzewuihe ACE, Ejikem CC. Uterovaginal prolapse at a university teaching hospital in south-east Nigeria. Orient journal of Medicine 2013; 25(3-4): 107-112.
3. Balogun OR. Genital prolapse in Ilorin: A seven-year review. Niger J Med 1997; 6:77-82.
4. Yakubu A, Abubakar Panti AA, Ladan AA, Burodo AT, Hassan MA, Nasir S. Pelvic organ prolapse managed at Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto: A 10‑year review. Sahel Med J 2017;20:26-9.
5. Monga A, Dobbs S, editors. Gynaecology by Ten Teachers. 19th ed. London: Book Power; 2011. p. 154‑62.
6. Agboola A, editor. Urogenital prolapse and the displacement of the uterus. In: Textbook of Obstetrics and Gynaecology for Medical Students. 2nd ed. Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books PLC; 2006. p. 33‑88.
7. Ogunbode O, Aimakhu VE. Uterine proplapse during pregnancy in Ibadan. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1973; 16:622-625.
8. 8. Cespedes RO, Cross CA, MeGuire EJ. Pelvic prolapse: Diagnosing and treating uterine and vaginal vault proplapse. Medscape Women’s Health 1998; 3:3-4.
9. 9. Molton PJD. Uterovaginal prolapse. In: Studd J (Ed). Progress in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 7, Edinburgh, Churchill Livingstone, 1989:319-330.
10. Ugboma HA, Okpani AO, Anya SE. Genital prolapse in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Niger J Med. 2004;13:124–9.
11. Okeke TC, Ani VC, Ezenyeaku CC, Ikeako LC, Enwereji JO, Ekwuazi K. An audit of uterovaginal prolapse in Enugu, Southeast Nigeria. Am J Clin Med Res. 2013;1:23–5.
12. Akmel M, Segni H. Pelvic organ prolapse in Jimma University specialized hospital, Southwest Ethiopia. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2012;22:85–92.
13. Njoku CO, Njoku AN. Obstetric fistula: the agony of unsafe motherhood. A review of Nigerian experience. JAMMR 2018; 28(12): 1-7. Article no. JAMMR 46890.
