Demographic characteristics of 150 subjects are reported in
Table 1. The average participant age was 54.9 years and average age at menopause was 48.7 years.
Table 2 reports symptoms and clinical indications of urogenital and breast changes in the sample cohort. These findings indicated significant associations between ‘marital status and vaginal atrophy’, ‘BMI and urinary incontinence', 'type of delivery and urinary incontinence’, ‘type and number of delivery with cystocele and rectocele’ (all P < 0.05). However, no significant association was observed between marital status and vaginal infection.
| Demographic Variable | Values |
|---|
| Age, y | |
| 40 - 44 | 3 (2) |
| 45 - 49 | 19 (12.7) |
| 50 - 54 | 55 (36.7) |
| 55 - 59 | 32 (21.3) |
| 60 - 65 | 41 (27.3) |
| Age (mean years) | 54.9 () |
| Marital status | |
| Married | 110 (73.3) |
| Widowed | 40 (26.7) |
| Educational status | |
| Illiterate | 133 (88.7) |
| Less than high school | 15 (10) |
| High school diploma | 2 (1.3) |
| Employment status | |
| Unemployed | 143 (95.3) |
| Employed | 7 (4.7) |
| BMI kg/m2 | |
| < 20 (thin) | 3 (2) |
| 20 - 25 (normal range) | 119 (73.3) |
| > 25 (obese) | 37 (24) |
| Menopausal age, y | |
| 40 - 44 | 39 (26) |
| 45 - 59 | 48 (32) |
| 50 - 54 | 55 (36.7) |
| 55 - 59 | 8 (5.3) |
| Menopausal age (mean years) | 48.7 () |
| Menopausal duration, y | |
| 1 - 5 | 78 (52) |
| 6 - 10 | 32 (21.3) |
| > 11 | 40 (26.7) |
| Calcium intake (in 24 hours) | |
| Adequate | 11 (7.3) |
| Inadequate | 139 (92.7) |
| Tea consumption (glasses per day) | |
| < 3 | 57 (38.01) |
| 3 | 53 (35.33) |
| > 3 | 40 (26.66) |
| Parity type | |
| Natural | 140 (93.3) |
| Caesarean | 10 (6.7) |
| Number of parities | |
| < 5 | 14 (9.33) |
| 5 - 10 | 76 (76) |
| > 10 | 22 (14.7) |
a Values are presented as No. (%).
| Symptom variable | Values |
|---|
| Breast atrophy | |
| Reduction of breast size | 34 (22.7) |
| Reduction of breast sensitivity | 100 (66.7) |
| Reduction of nipple sensitivity | 99 (66) |
| Vaginal atrophy | |
| Vaginal dryness | 63 (42) |
| Vaginal itching | 26 (17.3) |
| Libido | 62 (41.3) |
| Dyspareunia | 24 (16) |
| UTI | |
| Dysuria | 19 (12.7) |
| Urinary urge | 29 (19.3) |
| Urinary frequency | 50 (33.3) |
| Urinary incontinence | 12 (8) |
| Fever | 4 (2.7) |
| Lowe abdominal pain | 12 (8) |
| Vaginal infection | |
| Vaginal discharge | 16 (10.7) |
| Vaginal burning | 16 (10.7) |
| Vaginal itching | 17 (11.3) |
| Cystocele | |
| Signs | |
| Sense of pressure and mass in vagina | 49 (32.7) |
| Urinary incontinence | 32 (21.3) |
| Incomplete bladder discharge | 53 (35.3) |
| Signs of bladder infection | 7 (4.7) |
| Symptoms | |
| Prominence in the anterior vagina | 88 (58.7) |
| Thinning of anterior vaginal wall | 87 (58) |
| Symptoms of bladder infection | 4 (2.7) |
| Rectocele | |
| Signs | |
| Sense of pressure and mass in vagina | 21 (14) |
| Sense of fullness in the rectum | 24 (16) |
| Incomplete passing of faecal matter | 12 (8) |
| Constipation | 32 (21.3) |
| Symptoms | |
| Prominence in the posterior vagina | 34 (22.7) |
| Thinning of the posterior vaginal wall | 33 (22) |
| Uterus prolapse | |
| Signs | |
| Feel of mass in vagina | 4 (2.7) |
| Feel of fullness and heaviness in vagina | 7 (2.7) |
| Lower abdominal pain | 13 (8.7) |
| Lower back pain | 16 (10.7) |
| Constipation | 13 (8.7) |
| Painful to pass stool | 7 (4.7) |
| Signs of bladder infection | 1 (0.7) |
| Symptoms | |
| Removal of the cervix | 1 (0.7) |
| Vaginal discharge | 1 (0.7) |
| Vaginal bleeding | 0 (0) |
| Symptoms of bladder infection | 1 (0.7) |
| Urinary incontinence | |
| Urination when coughing or laughing | 43 (28.7) |
| Urge urination | 26 (17.3) |
| Fullness of bladder after emptying | 27 (18) |
| Nocturia | 34 (22.7) |
a Values are presented as No. (%).
A significant association was found between urinary incontinence and UTI (P < 0.001). To predict a relation between UTI and urinary incontinence, a logistic regression model indicated that UTI may increase the possibility of urinary incontinence by approximately 5.6 times. (Model 1) (Log p/1-p = -1.56 + 1.7 UTI; (OR = 5.6, 95 % CI 2.60 - 11.58; P = 0.001).
Potential confounding variables incorporated into the model included age, type of delivery and number of deliveries, all of which produced no significant association. As such, UTI remained the most important variable attributed to urinary incontinence. With omission of the above mentioned variables, logistic regression found that UTI increases the possibility of urinary incontinence by 6.15 times (Model 2).
Log p/1-p = 0.8 + 1.8 UTI + 0.05 Number of delivery + 0.10 delivery type-0.05 age; (OR = 6.15, 95% CI 2.86 to 13.26; P = 0.000)
An analysis of the association between cystocele and urinary incontinence was performed in Model 3. This logistic regression model showed an association between cystocele and urinary incontinence when adjusted for age, type of delivery and number of deliveries, which increased the possibility of urinary incontinence by approximately 1.73 times.
Log p/1-p = -0.38 -0.032 Number of delivery, -0.012 delivery type -0.01 age + 0.55 cystocele; (OR = 1.73, 95% CI 1.29 - 2.34; P = 0.000)
In Model 4, cystocele and UTI were added as variables to determine if this would further increase the possibility of urinary incontinence. UTI variable produced a greater effect in comparison to cystocele, whilst the other variables did not produce a significant interaction.
Log p/1-P = 0.17 -0.006 number of delivery + 0.033 delivery types -0.035 ages + 0.38; cystocele + 1.52 UTI; (OR = 4.6, 95% CI 2.06 t- 10.27; P = 0.000)
The rectocele variable was added in regression Model 5, which indicated that age, type of delivery and number of deliveries as variables were not significant. Logistic regression showed that adjusting for the mentioned variables, rectocele increased the possibility of urinary incontinence by approximately 1.47 times.
Log p/1-P = 0.241- 0.005 number of delivery + 0.008 delivery type -0.025 age + 0.387 rectocele; (OR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.20 - 1.80; P = 0.000)
Finally, the variables of rectocele, cystocele and UTI were all added to regression Model 6, which indicated that urinary infection variable produced a significant effect on urinary incontinence. Once the analysis was adjusted for rectocele and cystocele as variables, the possibility of urinary incontinence increased by 3.81 times.
Log p/1-p = -1.86 + 0.226 rectocele + 1.34 urinary incontinence + 0.29 cystocele;
(OR = 3.81, 95% CI 1.73 - 8.41; P = 0.001)