DAFTAR PUSTAKA
1. Price Sylvia A, Wilson Lorraine M. Patofisiologi: Konsep Klinis Proses-Proses Penyakit. Jakarta: EGC; 2012. 2. Doshani A, Teo RE, Mayne CJ, Tincello DG. Uterine prolapse. BMJ: British Medical Journal [internet]. 2007. [cited 2014 Des 8]; 335:819823. 3. Detollenaere RJ, Boon J, Stekelenburg J, Alhafidh AH, Hakvoort RA, Vierhout ME, et al. Treatment of Uterine Prolapse Stage 2 or Higher: A Randomized Multicenter Trial Comparing Sacrospinnosus Fixation with Vaginal Hysterectomy (SAVE U trial). BMC Womens Health Journal [internet]. 2011. [cited 2014 Nov 27]; 11(4). Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/11/4 4. Barsoom RS, Dyne PL. Uterine Prolapse in Emergency Medicine. Medscape Article. [internet]. 2013. [cited 2014 Nov 27 ]. Available from:http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/797295 overview#showall 5. Pratiwi M, Yoga K, Putra IGM. Pelvic Organ Prolapse. E-Jurnal Medika Udayana [internet]. 2013 [cited 2014 Des 10]; 2(4):709-736. 6. Kasiati K, Lestari D, Hardianto G. Analisis Faktor yang Berhubungan dengan Kejadian Prolaps Uteri pada Pasien Kunjungan Baru di Poli Kandungan RSUD Dr. Soetomo Surabaya. Wahana Riset Kesehatan; 2011. 7. Stalker P. Millenium Development Goals – UNDP in Indonesia; 2008.
56
57
8. Worku F, Gebresilassie S. Reproductive Health for Science Students. In collaboration with The Carter Canter (EPHTI) and The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Education and Ministry of Health. University of Gondar; 2008. 9. Anwar Mochamad, Baziad Ali, Prabowo R. Prajitno. Ilmu Kandungan: Kelainan Letak Alat-Alat Genital. Jakarta: PT Bina Pustaka Sarwono Prawirohardjo; 2011. 10. Werner C, Moschos E, Griffith W, Beshay V, Rahn D, Richardson D, et al. Williams Gynecology Study Guide, 2nd ed. United States: Mc Graw Hill Professional; 2012. 11. Shrestha B, Onta S, Choulagai B, Poudyal A, Pahari DP, Uprety A, et al. Women’s experiences and health care-seeking practices in relation to uterine prolapse in a hill district of Nepal. BMC Women's Health [internet].
2014.
[cited
2015
Jan
31].
Available
from:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/14/20 12. Shrestha A D, Lakhey B, Sharma J, Singh M, Singh S, Shresta B. Study team: Prevalence of Uterine Prolapse amongst Gynecology OPD Patients in Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital in Nepal and its Socio‐Cultural Determinants. Case Study 1 Nepal; 2012. 13. Sharma A, Zhang J P. Risk Factors and Symptoms of Uterine Prolapse: Reality of Nepali Women; 2014. 14. Nizomy IR, Prabowo RP, Hardianto G. Correlation between Risk Factors and Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Gynecology Outpatient Clinic,
58
Dr. Soetomo Hospital Surabaya, 2007-2011. Department of Obstetric & Gynecology Faculty of Medicine, Airlangga University [internet]. 2013. [cited 2015 Feb 14]; 21(2):61-66 15. Kuncharapu I, Majeroni BA, Johnson DW. Pelvic Organ Prolapse. American Academy of Family Physician. 2010;81(9). 16. (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world factbook/geos/id.html), 17. Noerpramana, Noor Pramono, Hadijono, R Soerjo, Iskandar, T. Mirza, Kristanto Herman, Hidayat, Syarief Thaufik, Erwinanto. Praktis Klinis Obstetri Ginekologi. Semarang: Cakrawala Media; 2013. 18. Berek, Jonathan S. Berek & Novak’s Gynecology 15th ed. Lippincott Williams & wilkins; 2012. 19. Siregar Nurhasidan. Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Pengetahuan Ibu tentang Prolapsus Uteri di Rumah Sakit Umum Kesdam Iskandar Muda Banda Aceh. STIKesU’Budiyah Banda Aceh; 2013. 20. Snell RS. Anatomi Klinis: Berdasarkan Sistem. Jakarta: EGC; 2012. 21. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Williams Obstetrics 24th Edition iInternet]. United States: Mc Graw Hill; 2014. [cited 2014 Des 12]. Available from: www.mhprofessional.com. 22. Chamberlain Geoffrey, Steer PJ. Turnbull’s Obstetrics 3rd ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2002.
59
23. Drake RL, Vogl AW, Mitchell AWM, Gray’s Anatomy for Students, 3rd ed. [internet]. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2014 [cited 2015 Jan
13].
Available
from:
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/mcp/education/300.713%20lectures/ 2014/byung_kang_pelvis_09.15.2014.pdf 24. Wahyudi. Distribusi Staging dan Faktor Risiko Prolapsus Organ Pelvis di Poliklinik Ginekologi RS H. Adam Malik / RS dr. Pirngadi Medan Berdasar Sistem POPQ. USU e-Repository; 2008. 25. Milton S. Hershey Medical Center. Uterine Prolapse [internet]. 2013. [updated 2013 Aug 5; cited 2015 Jan 28]. Available from: http://pennstatehershey.adam.com/content.aspx?productId=117&pid=1 &gid=001508 26. Marta, KF. Hubungan Antara Prolaps Organ Panggul dengan Ukuran Panggul Perempuan Suku Bali. Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Udayana Denpasar; 2011. 27. Handa VL, Blomquist JL, McDermott KC, Friedman S, Munoz A. Pelvic Floor Disorders After Childbirth: Effect of Episiotomy, Perineal Laceration, and Operative Birth. National Institutes of Health Obstet Gynecol; 2012. [cited 2015 Feb 20]; 119(2) 28. DeCherney AH, Nathan L. Current Obstetric & Gynecologic: Diagnosis & Treatment 9th Edition. Mc Graw Hill Companies; 2003.
60
29. Brubaker L, et al. Pelvic organ prolapse. Incontinence. 2nd International Consultation on Incontinence. 2nd ed. Plymouth (UK): Plymouth Distributors [internet]; 2002: 243-265. 30. Hacker NF. Essentials of Obstetrics and Gynecology edisi 4. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders; 2004. 31. Hasnawati A, Irianta T, Moeljono ER, Miskad UA, Bahar B. Perbandingan Ekspresi Elastin Ligamentum Sakrouterina Pada Perempuan Dengan Prolaps Organ Panggul dan Tanpa Prolaps Organ Panggul. Bagian Obstetri dan Ginekologi Fakultas Kedokteran Universitas Hasanuddin; 2012. 32. Hunskaar S, Burgio K, Clark A, Lapitain MC, Nelsom R, Sillen U, et al. Epidemiology of Urinanry )UI) and Faecal (FI) Incontinence and Pelvic Organ Prolapse (POP) chapter 5. 33. Thapa B, G. Rana, and S. Gurung. Contributing factors of uterovaginal prolapse among women attending in Bharatpur Hospital. Journal of Chitwan Medical College [internet]. 2015; 4(3):38-42. 34. Schorge JO, Schaffer JI, Halvorson LM, Hoffman BL, Bradshaw KD, Cunningham FG. Williams Gynecology. United States: Mc Graw Hill Companies; 2008. 35. Mirhashemi Ramin, MD. Treatment of Pelvic Prolapse. Available from: http://www.gynla.com/expertise/pelvic-prolapse-treatment.php 36. A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. Uterine Prolapse [internet].2013 [cited 2014 Des 30].
61
Available
from:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001508.htm 37. Junizaf, Santoso Budi Iman. Panduan Penatalaksanaan Prolaps Organ Panggul. Himpunan Uroginekologi-POGI; 2013. 38. Persu C, Chapple CR, Cauni V, Gutue S, Geavlete P. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) – a new era in pelvic prolapse staging. Journal of Medicine and Life [internet]. 2011. [cited 2015 Feb 3]; 4(1):75‐81. 39. Kenny, Dr Beverley. Uterus Showing Prolapse (diagram). Egton Medical Information Systems Limited [internet]. 2015. Available from:
http://www.patient.co.uk/diagram/uterus-showing-prolapse-
diagram 40. Zulfadli, Fauzi A, Azhari, Theodorus. Impact of Uterine Prolapse Surgery on Improvement of Bowel Symptoms [internet]. 2014. [cited 2014 Des 13]; 2(3) 41. Shaw R, Luesley D, Monga A (eds). Urogynaecology section. Gynaecology, 4th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 2010. 42. Downing Keith T. Uterine Prolapse: From Antiquity to Today. Obstetrics and Gynecology International; 2012. 43. International Urogynecological Association. Pelvic Organ Prolapse: A Guide for Women; 2011. 44. Suryaningdyah Dwika. Hubungan Paritas dengan Kejadian Proaps Uteri di RSUD Dr. Moewardi Surakarta; 2008.
62
45. Quiroz LH, Munoz A, Shippey SH, Gutman RE, Handa VL. “Vaginal Parity and Pelvic Organ Prolapse. Journal of Reproductive Medicine. [internet]. 2010. [cited 2015 Jun 19]; 55(3-4):93-98. 46. Fritel X, Varnoux N, Zins M, Breart G, ringa V. Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse at Midlife, Qualoty of Life and Risk Factors: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. [internet]. 2009. [cited 2015 Jun 20]; 113(2):609-616. 47. Scott J, Disaia Pj, Hammond CB, Spellacy N, Gordon JD. 2002. Buku Saku Obstetri dan Ginekologi. Jakarta: Widya Medika. 48. Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Schmidt M, Nyren O, Hammarstrom M. Nonobstetric Risk Factors for Symptomatic Pelvic Organ Prolapse. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist. [internet]. 2009. [cited 2015 Jun 20]; 113(5):1089-1097. 49. Datta M, Randall L, Holmes N, Kamnaharan N. 2008. Rujukan Cepat Obstetri & Ginekologi. Jakarta: EGC.
63
Lampiran 1. Ethical Clearance
64
Lampiran 2. Surat izin penelitian
65
Lampiran 3. Output SPSS Analisis Univariat Dae rah asal
Valid
Frequency 42 14 56
Semarang Luar Semarang Total
Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0
Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0
Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0
Pekerjaan
Valid
Bekerja Tidak bekerja Total
Frequency 11 45 56
Percent 19.6 80.4 100.0
Valid Percent 19.6 80.4 100.0
Cumulative Percent 19.6 100.0
Pendidikan
Valid
Frequency Dasar 24 Menengah/Tinggi 32 Total 56
Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0
Valid Percent 42.9 57.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 42.9 100.0
Status perkawinan
Valid
Frequency Kawin 55 Tidak kawin 1 Total 56
Percent 98.2 1.8 100.0
Valid Percent 98.2 1.8 100.0
Cumulative Percent 98.2 100.0
Paritas Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Valid
Multipara
46
82,1
82,1
82,1
Nulipara/Primipara
10
17,9
17,9
100,0
Total
56
100,0
100,0
66 Usia
Valid
>= 50 tahun < 50 tahun Total
Frequency 45 11 56
Percent 80.4 19.6 100.0
Valid Percent 80.4 19.6 100.0
Cumulative Percent 80.4 100.0
Riw ayat haid
Valid
Menopause Belum Total
Frequency 47 9 56
Percent 83.9 16.1 100.0
Valid Percent 83.9 16.1 100.0
Cumulative Percent 83.9 100.0
BMI Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
>= 25
27
48,2
48,2
48,2
< 25
29
51,8
51,8
100,0
Total
56
100,0
100,0
Grade Prolaps Uteri Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Grade 4
30
53,6
53,6
53,6
Grade 3
12
21,4
21,4
75,0
Grade 2
9
16,1
16,1
91,1
Grade 1
5
8,9
8,9
100,0
56
100,0
100,0
Total
Tindakan Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
Operatif
38
67,9
67,9
67,9
Non operatif
18
32,1
32,1
100,0
Total
56
100,0
100,0
67
Crosstabs 1. Paritas * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri Crosstab Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Paritas
Count
Total
Grade I - II
41
5
46
34,5
11,5
46,0
% within Diagnosis PU
97,6%
35,7%
82,1%
% of Total
73,2%
8,9%
82,1%
1
9
10
7,5
2,5
10,0
% within Diagnosis PU
2,4%
64,3%
17,9%
% of Total
1,8%
16,1%
17,9%
42
14
56
42,0
14,0
56,0
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
75,0%
25,0%
100,0%
Expected Count Multipara
Count Expected Count Nulipara/Primipara
Count Expected Count Total % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Chi-Square Tests Value
Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Exact Sig.
Exact Sig.
sided)
(2-sided)
(1-sided)
a
1
,000
23,374
1
,000
24,852
1
,000
26,942
1
,000
27,432 b
df
Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
,000
56
a. 1 cells (25,0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2,50. b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Risk Estimate Value Odds Ratio for Paritas (Multipara / Nulipara/Primipara) For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper 73,800 7,663 710,785 8,913 ,121 56
1,385 ,051
57,377 ,283
,000
68
2. Usia * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri Crosstab
Usia
>= 50 tahun
< 50 tahun
Total
Count Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total Count Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total Count Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II 41 4 33.8 11.3 97.6% 28.6% 73.2% 7.1% 1 10 8.3 2.8 2.4% 71.4% 1.8% 17.9% 42 14 42.0 14.0 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 25.0%
Total 45 45.0 80.4% 80.4% 11 11.0 19.6% 19.6% 56 56.0 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square a Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
Value 31.714b 27.491 29.283
df 1 1 1
31.148
1
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
.000
.000
.000
56 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2. 75.
Risk Estimate
Value Odds Ratio for Usia (>= 50 tahun / < 50 tahun) For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper
102.500
10.300
1020.058
10.022
1.543
65.091
.098
.038
.254
56
69
3. Menopause * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri Crosstab
Riwayat haid
Menopause
Belum
Total
Count Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total Count Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total Count Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II 41 6 35.3 11.8 97.6% 42.9% 73.2% 10.7% 1 8 6.8 2.3 2.4% 57.1% 1.8% 14.3% 42 14 42.0 14.0 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 25.0%
Total 47 47.0 83.9% 83.9% 9 9.0 16.1% 16.1% 56 56.0 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square a Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
Value 23.344b 19.461 20.803
df 1 1 1
22.928
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .000 .000 .000
1
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
.000
.000
.000
56
a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 1 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2. 25.
Risk Estimate
Value Odds Ratio for Riwayat haid (Menopause / Belum) For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper
54.667
5.771
517.865
7.851
1.233
49.987
.144
.066
.314
56
70
4. BMI * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
Crosstab
BMI
>= 23
< 23
Total
Count Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total Count Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total Count Expected Count % within Diagnosis PU % of Total
Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II 21 6 20.3 6.8 50.0% 42.9% 37.5% 10.7% 21 8 21.8 7.3 50.0% 57.1% 37.5% 14.3% 42 14 42.0 14.0 100.0% 100.0% 75.0% 25.0%
Total 27 27.0 48.2% 48.2% 29 29.0 51.8% 51.8% 56 56.0 100.0% 100.0%
Chi-Square Tests
Pearson Chi-Square a Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases
Value .215b .024 .215
df 1 1 1
.211
1
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) .643 .877 .643
Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Exact Sig. (1-sided)
.761
.440
.646
56
a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6. 75.
Risk Estimate
Value Odds Ratio for BMI (> = 23 / < 23) For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases
95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper
1.333
.394
4.512
1.074
.794
1.453
.806
.321
2.021
56
71
Logistic Regression
Variables in the Equation
Step a 1
Step a 2 Step a 3
Usia Paritas Haid Constant Usia Haid Constant Usia Constant
B 42.787 -19.257 -19.257 -6.600 23.530 -19.123 -6.734 4.630 -6.957
S.E. 49226.046 40192.887 28420.710 1.497 28420.716 28420.716 1.491 1.172 1.482
Wald .000 .000 .000 19.446 .000 .000 20.403 15.596 22.025
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Usia, Paritas, Haid.
df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Sig. .999 1.000 .999 .000 .999 .999 .000 .000 .000
Exp(B) 4E+018 .000 .000 .001 2E+010 .000 .001 102.500 .001
95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) Lower Upper .000 . .000 . .000 . .000 .000
. .
10.300
1020.058
72
Lampiran 4. Identitas mahasiswa
IDENTITAS MAHASISWA Nama
: Baiq Cipta Hardianti
NIM
: 22010111140197
Tempat/tanggal lahir : Sintung, 13 Juli 1993 Jenis kelamin
: Perempuan
Alamat
: Sintung, Kecamatan Pringgarata, Lombok Tengah, NTB
Nomor HP
: 087864092298 / 085713421504
E-mail
:
[email protected]
Riwayat Pendidikan Formal 1. SD
: SD Negeri Esot
Lulus tahun
: 2005
2. SMP
: SMP Negeri 1 Narmada
Lulus tahun
: 2008
3. SMA
: SMA Negeri 1 Mataram
Lulus tahun
: 2011
4. FK UNDIP : Masuk tahun 2011
