Female genital mutilation/cutting incidence, diagnostic capacities, and obstetric outcomes among migrant women: a single-center retrospective analysis in a 10-year birth cohort in Austria.

INTRODUCTION: Practical experience in the care of women with female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) is uncommon in Austria. However, affected women require specialized gynecological and obstetric care. In our region, there is currently neither an official counseling center nor specially trained medical personnel to address the special needs of women after FGM/C. The aim of this study was to determine the potential need for obstetric care for women who have undergone FGM/C in our region. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed women presenting for delivery at the LKH University Hospital Graz from 1.1.2010 until 31.12.2020 regarding the place of birth and/or the nationality of the mother to filter out women from a country with known FGM/C prevalence according to the UNICEF Global Database. Data on the documentation of FGM/C as well as demographic maternal data and peripartal parameters were gathered. Periods before and after the European refugee crisis in 2015 were compared. RESULTS: During the study period, a total of 35,628 deliveries took place at our hospital. 856 (2.4%) deliveries of 539 women were included due to nationality or birthplace in a country with known FGM/C prevalence. We found only 17/539 (3.2%) documented FGM/C cases. The estimated FGM/C prevalence among those patients was, however, 208/539 (38,6%). Women affected by FGM/C in our collective were most frequently from Nigeria, Egypt, Iraq, Ghana, and Somalia. No statistically significant increase in deliveries during the study period in the overall study cohort was observed, with the exception of deliveries of Somali women (p = 0.000). DISCUSSION: The discrepancy between documented and expected FGM/C rates (3,2% vs. 38,6%) in our collective suggests that most cases of FGM/C go undetected among women delivering in Austria. These data show the great need for special training for obstetricians and targeted contact points for affected women.

Delivery mode and pelvic organ prolapse: a retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the associations between delivery mode and symptoms and signs of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) in a cohort of symptomatic women. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. POPULATION: A total of 1258 consecutive women attending a tertiary urogynaecological unit for the investigation of lower urinary tract or pelvic floor disorders between January 2012 and December 2014. METHODS: Obstetric history and clinical examination data were obtained from the unit database. Prolapse quantification on imaging was performed using stored four-dimensional translabial ultrasound volume data sets. Women were grouped into four groups according to the most traumatic delivery reported. The presence of symptoms and signs of POP were compared between delivery groups while controlling for potential confounders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prolapse symptoms, visual analogue score for prolapse bother, International Continence Society Prolapse Quantification System findings and ultrasound findings of anterior, central and posterior compartment descent. RESULTS: Nulliparae showed the lowest prevalence of most measures of POP, followed by women exclusively delivered by caesarean section. Highest prevalences were consistently found in women delivered at least once by forceps, although the differences between this group and women delivered by normal vaginal delivery and/or vacuum extraction were significant in three out of eight measures only. Compared with women in the caesarean section group, the adjusted odds ratios for reporting symptoms of prolapse were 2.4 (95% CI 1.30-4.59) and 3.2 (95% CI 1.65-6.12) in the normal vaginal delivery/vacuum extraction group and forceps group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear link between vaginal delivery and symptoms and signs of pelvic organ prolapse in urogynaecological patients. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Compared with caesarean section a history of vaginal delivery more than doubles the risk for POP.

Use of a visual analog scale for evaluation of bother from pelvic organ prolapse.

OBJECTIVES: A specified anatomical degree of prolapse may cause no bother in one individual and a severe form of bother in another. The aim of this study was to determine the factors contributing to the degree of bother due to a given degree of prolapse, to help with the clinical evaluation of patients and planning of preventive intervention trials and surgical treatment. METHODS: Consecutive patient records of 654 women who had attended a urogynecology unit between August 2011 and December 2012 were reviewed. All patients underwent a standardized interview, clinical examination and four-dimensional translabial ultrasound scan. The degree of bother was evaluated using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirty-six women were included in the analysis, with ultrasound data available for cystocele, rectocele and enterocele descent and rectocele depth measurements and 442 for uterine descent. 313 women (49.2%) had subjective symptoms of female pelvic organ prolapse at a mean bother score of 6.0 ± 2.6. Average bother score for the complete dataset was 3.0 ± 3.5. Parity, vaginal delivery, levator avulsion, any significant clinical prolapse or prolapse seen on ultrasound were associated with prolapse bother and all clinical and ultrasound measures of pelvic organ descent remained significant or near significant on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Quantification of prolapse bother using a visual analog scale is valid and repeatable and may represent a simple tool for use in clinical practice.

Use of complementary therapies in a sexual health clinic setting.

This prospective cohort study examined the health-seeking behaviour of patients diagnosed with genital warts and vulvodynia who presented to Manly Sexual Health Service from March to June 2000. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess patients' perceptions of their condition and their use of complementary therapies. Thirty-seven patients with genital warts and 26 patients with vulvodynia participated in the study. The use of at least one complementary health product or method was reported by 59% of patients with genital warts and 96% of vulvodynia patients (P < 0.001). Having received conflicting information and being worried about the condition was significantly associated with visits to complementary health providers. Acknowledgement of this search for complementary therapies and open discussion can help patients make informed decisions and to avoid drug interactions, and should ultimately lead to better patient care.