Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2018 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Sep 8;216(2):155.e1–155.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.074

Table 1.

Demographics and POP-Q values in three groups of women with varying degrees of pelvic supporta

Characteristics Normal
Normal (N=14)
Normal
Prolapse (N=11)
Prolapse
Prolapse (N=27)
Overall P valuec
Age, years 47.1 ± 10.4 52.9 ± 13.8 59.0 ± 12.0 .013
Parity 1.5 (1,2) 3 (2,3) 3 (2,3) .013
BMI, kg/m 30.1 ± 5.7 28.4 ± 5.4 27.5 ± 5.7 .378
POP-Q Points, cmb
Aa −2.0 (−3.0,−1.0) 0 (0,2.0) 1 (0,2.0) <.001
Ba −2.0 (−3.0,−1.0) 1.0 (0,2.0) 2.0 (1.0,3.5) <.001
C −6.0 (−7.0,−5.5) −6.0 (−8.0,−5.0) −2.5 (−4.0,−2.0) <.001
Ap −3.0 (−3.0,−2.0) −1.0 (−2.0,0) −2.0 (−2.0,−1.0) .003
Bp −3.0 (−3.0,−2.0) −1.0 (−2.0,0) −1.0 (−2.0,−1.0) .044
GH 3.0 (2.0,3.0) 4.0 (3.5,5.0) 3.75 (3.0,4.0) .087
PB 3.0 (3.0,3.0) 3.0 (3.0,4.0) 3.0 (3.0,3.5) .663
TVL 10.0 (9.5, 10.5) 10.0 (9.5, 12.0) 9.75 (8.0, 11.0) .362
a

Data presented as mean ± SD or median (IQR).

b

POP−Q measurements reported in reference to the hymenal ring (0 cm) and measured during maximal Valsalva, with the exception of TVL.

c

P values comparing group means were determined by simple linear regression models.