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

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 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

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

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid Semarang 42 75.0 75.0 75.0
Luar Semarang 14 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 56 100.0 100.0

Pekerjaan

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 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

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent 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

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

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

 66
Usia

Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid >= 50 tahun 45 80.4 80.4 80.4
< 50 tahun 11 19.6 19.6 100.0
Total 56 100.0 100.0

Riw ayat haid

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

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

 67

Crosstabs
1. Paritas * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri
Crosstab

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- Exact Sig. Exact Sig.

sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
a
Pearson Chi-Square 27,432 1 ,000
b
Continuity Correction 23,374 1 ,000
Likelihood Ratio 24,852 1 ,000
Fisher's Exact Test ,000 ,000
Linear-by-Linear Association 26,942 1 ,000
N of Valid Cases 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 / 73,800 7,663 710,785
Nulipara/Primipara)
For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade III - IV 8,913 1,385 57,377
For cohort Diagnosis PU = Grade I - II ,121 ,051 ,283
N of Valid Cases 56
 68

2. Usia * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri

Crosstab

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. Exact Sig.

Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 31.714b 1 .000
a
Continuity Correction 27.491 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 29.283 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000
Linear-by-Linear
31.148 1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases 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

95% Confidence
Interval
Value Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Usia (>=
102.500 10.300 1020.058
50 tahun / < 50 tahun)
For cohort Diagnosis
10.022 1.543 65.091
PU = Grade III - IV
For cohort Diagnosis
.098 .038 .254
PU = Grade I - II
N of Valid Cases 56
 69

3. Menopause * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri

Crosstab

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

Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig.

Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 23.344b 1 .000
a
Continuity Correction 19.461 1 .000
Likelihood Ratio 20.803 1 .000
Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000
Linear-by-Linear
22.928 1 .000
Association
N of Valid Cases 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

95% Confidence
Interval
Value Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for Riwayat
haid (Menopause / 54.667 5.771 517.865
Belum)
For cohort Diagnosis
7.851 1.233 49.987
PU = Grade III - IV
For cohort Diagnosis
.144 .066 .314
PU = Grade I - II
N of Valid Cases 56
 70

4. BMI * Diagnosis Prolaps Uteri

Crosstab

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. Exact Sig.

Value df (2-sided) (2-sided) (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square .215b 1 .643
a
Continuity Correction .024 1 .877
Likelihood Ratio .215 1 .643
Fisher's Exact Test .761 .440
Linear-by-Linear
.211 1 .646
Association
N of Valid Cases 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

95% Confidence
Interval
Value Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for BMI
1.333 .394 4.512
(> = 23 / < 23)
For cohort Diagnosis
1.074 .794 1.453
PU = Grade III - IV
For cohort Diagnosis
.806 .321 2.021
PU = Grade I - II
N of Valid Cases 56
 71

Logistic Regression

Variables in the Equation

95.0% C.I.for EXP(B)

B S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(B) Lower Upper
Step
a Usia 42.787 49226.046 .000 1 .999 4E+018 .000 .
1 Paritas -19.257 40192.887 .000 1 1.000 .000 .000 .
Haid -19.257 28420.710 .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .
Constant -6.600 1.497 19.446 1 .000 .001
Step
a Usia 23.530 28420.716 .000 1 .999 2E+010 .000 .
2 Haid -19.123 28420.716 .000 1 .999 .000 .000 .
Constant -6.734 1.491 20.403 1 .000 .001
Step
a Usia 4.630 1.172 15.596 1 .000 102.500 10.300 1020.058
3 Constant -6.957 1.482 22.025 1 .000 .001
a. Variable(s) entered on step 1: Usia, Paritas, Haid.
 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 : baiqcipta@ymail.com

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