Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

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]; 335:819-

823.

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

SocioCultural 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:

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:

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:

26. Marta, KF. Hubungan Antara Prolaps Organ Panggul dengan Ukuran

Panggul

Perempuan

Suku

Bali.

Udayana Denpasar; 2011.

Fakultas

Kedokteran

Universitas

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.

29. Brubaker

L,

et

al.

Pelvic

organ

prolapse.

Incontinence.

60

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

Universitas Hasanuddin; 2012.

Fakultas

Kedokteran

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 utero-

vaginal 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

of Health. Uterine Prolapse [internet].2013 [cited 2014 Des 30].

Available

61

from:

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):7581.

39. Dr

Kenny,

Beverley.

Uterus Showing

Prolapse (diagram).

Egton

Medical

Information

Systems

Limited

[internet].

2015.

Available

from:

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.

Lampiran 1. Ethical Clearance

63

Lampiran 1. Ethical Clearance 63

Lampiran 2. Surat izin penelitian

64

Lampiran 2. Surat izin penelitian 64

Lampiran 3. Output SPSS

Analisis Univariat

Daerah asal

65

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

Valid

Semarang

42

75.0

75.0

75.0

Luar Semarang

14

25.0

25.0

100.0

Total

56

100.0

100.0

Percent

Pekerjaan

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Bekerja

11

19.6

19.6

19.6

Tidak bekerja

45

80.4

80.4

100.0

Total

56

100.0

100.0

Pendidikan

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Dasar

24

42.9

42.9

42.9

Menengah/Tinggi

32

57.1

57.1

100.0

Total

56

100.0

100.0

Status perkawinan

  Frequency Percent Valid Kawin 55 98.2 Tidak kawin 1 1.8 Total 56 100.0
  Frequency Percent Valid Kawin 55 98.2 Tidak kawin 1 1.8 Total 56 100.0
 

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Kawin

55

98.2

Tidak kawin

1

1.8

Total

56

100.0

Cumulative

Valid Percent

Percent

98.2

98.2

1.8

100.0

100.0

Paritas

 

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

 

Multipara

46

82,1

82,1

82,1

Valid

Nulipara/Primipara

10

17,9

17,9

100,0

Total

56

100,0

100,0

 

Usia

66

  Frequency Percent Valid >= 50 tahun 45 80.4 < 50 tahun 11 19.6 Total
  Frequency Percent Valid >= 50 tahun 45 80.4 < 50 tahun 11 19.6 Total
 

Frequency

Percent

Valid

>= 50 tahun

45

80.4

< 50 tahun

11

19.6

Total

56

100.0

Cumulative

Valid Percent

Percent

80.4

80.4

19.6

100.0

100.0

Riwayat haid

  Frequency Percent Valid Menopause 47 83.9 Belum 9 16.1 Total 56 100.0
  Frequency Percent Valid Menopause 47 83.9 Belum 9 16.1 Total 56 100.0
 

Frequency

Percent

Valid

Menopause

47

83.9

Belum

9

16.1

Total

56

100.0

Cumulative

Valid Percent

Percent

83.9

83.9

16.1

100.0

100.0

 

BMI

 

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent

 

>= 25

27

48,2

48,2

48,2

Valid

< 25

29

51,8

51,8

100,0

Total

56

100,0

100,0

 

Grade Prolaps Uteri

 

Frequency

 

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

 

Percent

 

Grade 4

 

30

 

53,6

53,6

53,6

Grade 3

 

12

 

21,4

21,4

75,0

Valid

Grade 2

 

9

 

16,1

16,1

91,1

Grade 1

 

5

 

8,9

8,9

100,0

Total

 

56

 

100,0

100,0

 
 

Tindakan

 
 

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

 

Percent

 

Operatif

38

67,9

67,9

67,9

Valid

Non operatif

18

32,1

32,1

100,0

Total

56

100,0

100,0

 

Crosstabs

1. Paritas * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri

Crosstab

67

 

Diagnosis PU

Total

Grade III - IV

Grade I - II

Paritas

Count

41

5

46

Expected Count

34,5

11,5

46,0

 

Multipara

% within Diagnosis PU

97,6%

35,7%

82,1%

 

% of Total

73,2%

8,9%

82,1%

Count

1

9

10

Expected Count

7,5

2,5

10,0

 

Nulipara/Primipara

% within Diagnosis PU

2,4%

64,3%

17,9%

 

% of Total

1,8%

16,1%

17,9%

 

Count

42

14

56

Expected Count

42,0

14,0

56,0

Total

% within Diagnosis PU

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

% of Total

75,0%

25,0%

100,0%

Chi-Square Tests

 

Value

df

Asymp. Sig. (2- sided)

Exact Sig.

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

(1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction b Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear Association N of Valid Cases

27,432 a

 

1 ,000

   

23,374

1 ,000

   

24,852

1 ,000

   

,000

,000

26,942

 

1 ,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

95% Confidence Interval

Lower

Upper

Odds Ratio for Paritas (Multipara / Nulipara/Primipara) For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II

73,800

7,663

710,785

8,913

1,385

57,377

,121

,051

,283

N of Valid Cases

56

2. Usia * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri

Crosstab

68

Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total Usia >= 50 tahun
Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total Usia >= 50 tahun
Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total Usia >= 50 tahun

Diagnosis PU

Grade III - IV

Grade I - II

Total

Usia

>= 50 tahun

Count

41

4

45

 

Expected Count

33.8

11.3

45.0

%

within Diagnosis PU

97.6%

28.6%

80.4%

%

of Total

73.2%

7.1%

80.4%

 

< 50 tahun

Count

1

10

11

 

Expected Count

8.3

2.8

11.0

%

within Diagnosis PU

2.4%

71.4%

19.6%

%

of Total

1.8%

17.9%

19.6%

Total

Count

42

14

56

Expected Count

42.0

14.0

56.0

%

within Diagnosis PU

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

%

of Total

75.0%

25.0%

100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

 

Asymp. Sig.

Exact Sig.

Value

df

(2-sided)

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction a 27.491 1 .000 Likelihood Ratio 29.283 1 .000 Fisher's Exact
Pearson Chi-Square
Continuity Correction a
27.491
1 .000
Likelihood Ratio
29.283
1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test
.000
Linear-by-Linear
31.148
1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases
56

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

.000

31.714

b

1 .000

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

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

Value

102.500

10.022

.098

56

II N of Valid Cases Value 102.500 10.022 .098 56 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper 10.300
II N of Valid Cases Value 102.500 10.022 .098 56 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper 10.300

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

10.300

1020.058

1.543

65.091

.038

.254

69

3. Menopause * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri

Crosstab

Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total Riwayat Menopause Count 41
Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total Riwayat Menopause Count 41
Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total Riwayat Menopause Count 41

Diagnosis PU

Grade III - IV

Grade I - II

Total

Riwayat

Menopause

Count

41

6

47

haid

Expected Count

35.3

11.8

47.0

%

within Diagnosis PU

97.6%

42.9%

83.9%

%

of Total

73.2%

10.7%

83.9%

 

Belum

Count

1

8

9

 

Expected Count

6.8

2.3

9.0

%

within Diagnosis PU

2.4%

57.1%

16.1%

%

of Total

1.8%

14.3%

16.1%

Total

Count

42

14

56

Expected Count

42.0

14.0

56.0

%

within Diagnosis PU

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

%

of Total

75.0%

25.0%

100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

Pearson Chi-Square Continuity Correction a Likelihood Ratio Fisher's Exact Test Linear-by-Linear

Pearson Chi-Square

Continuity Correction a

Likelihood Ratio

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear

Association

N of Valid Cases

Value

19.461

20.803

22.928

56

df

1

1

1

Value 19.461 20.803 22.928 56 df 1 1 1 Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. (2-sided)
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) .000 .000 .000   .000
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided) .000 .000 .000   .000

Asymp. Sig.

Exact Sig.

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

(2-sided)

(1-sided)

.000

.000

.000

 

.000

.000

.000

23.344

b

1

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

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

Value

Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II N of Valid Cases Value 54.667 7.851 .144 56

54.667

7.851

.144

56

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

5.771

517.865

1.233

49.987

.066

.314

4. BMI * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri

Crosstab

70

Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total BMI >= 23 Count
Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total BMI >= 23 Count
Diagnosis PU Grade III - IV Grade I - II Total BMI >= 23 Count

Diagnosis PU

Grade III - IV

Grade I - II

Total

BMI

>= 23

Count

21

6

27

 

Expected Count

20.3

6.8

27.0

%

within Diagnosis PU

50.0%

42.9%

48.2%

%

of Total

37.5%

10.7%

48.2%

 

< 23

Count

21

8

29

 

Expected Count

21.8

7.3

29.0

%

within Diagnosis PU

50.0%

57.1%

51.8%

%

of Total

37.5%

14.3%

51.8%

Total

Count

42

14

56

Expected Count

42.0

14.0

56.0

%

within Diagnosis PU

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

%

of Total

75.0%

25.0%

100.0%

Chi-Square Tests

 

Asymp. Sig.

Exact Sig.

Value

df

(2-sided)

(2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square

Continuity Correction a

Likelihood Ratio

Fisher's Exact Test

Linear-by-Linear

Association

N of Valid Cases

.215 b

1 .643

.024

1 .877

.215

1 .643

 

.761

.211

1 .646

56

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

.440

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

Odds Ratio for BMI

(>= 23 / < 23)

For cohort Diagnosis

PU = Grade III - IV

For cohort Diagnosis

PU = Grade I - II

N of Valid Cases

Value

1.333

1.074

.806

56

- II N of Valid Cases Value 1.333 1.074 .806 56 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper
- II N of Valid Cases Value 1.333 1.074 .806 56 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Upper

.394

4.512

.794

1.453

.321

2.021

Logistic Regression

Variables in the Equation

71

Step Usia a 1 Paritas Haid Constant Step Usia a 2 Haid Constant Step Usia
Step Usia a 1 Paritas Haid Constant Step Usia a 2 Haid Constant Step Usia
Step
Usia
a
1 Paritas
Haid
Constant
Step
Usia
a
2 Haid
Constant
Step
Usia
a
3 Constant

B

S.E.

Wald

42.787

49226.046

.000

-19.257

40192.887

.000

-19.257

28420.710

.000

-6.600

1.497

19.446

23.530

28420.716

.000

-19.123

28420.716

.000

-6.734

1.491

20.403

4.630

1.172

15.596

-6.957

1.482

22.025

4.630 1.172 15.596 -6.957 1.482 22.025       95.0% C.I.for EXP(B) df Sig.
     

95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)

df

Sig.

Exp(B)

Lower

Upper

1

.999

4E+018

.000

.

1

1.000

.000

.000

.

1

.999

.000

.000

.

1

.000

.001

1

.999

2E+010

.000

.

1

.999

.000

.000

.

1

.000

.001

1

.000

102.500

10.300

1020.058

1

.000

.001

a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Usia, Paritas, Haid.

Lampiran 4. Identitas mahasiswa

72

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

: baiqcipta@ymail.com

Riwayat Pendidikan Formal

1. : SD Negeri Esot

SD

Lulus tahun

: 2005

2. : SMP Negeri 1 Narmada

SMP

Lulus tahun

: 2008

3. : SMA Negeri 1 Mataram

SMA

Lulus tahun

: 2011

4. FK UNDIP : Masuk tahun 2011