OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare bony pelvis dimensions at the level of pelvic support in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse (POP). STUDY DESIGN: Pelvic floor dimensions of 42 white women with POP > 1 cm beyond the hymen were compared with 42 age- and parity-matched women with normal support. Bony landmarks relevant to connective tissue and levator attachments were identified on magnetic resonance imaging. Dimensions were independently measured by 2 examiners and averaged for each subject. RESULTS: Measurements (in centimeters) for patients and control subjects were as follows: interspinous diameter, 11.2 +/- 0.8 versus 11.1 +/- 0.7, P = .19; anterior-posterior outlet diameter, 11.7 +/- 0.7 versus 11.7 +/- 0.8, P = .71; pubic symphysis to ischial spine left, 9.5 +/- 0.5 versus 9.5 +/- 0.4, P = .91; pubic symphysis to ischial spine right, 9.5 +/- 0.4 versus 9.5 +/- 0.5, P = .81; sacrococcygeal junction to ischial spine left, 7.0 +/- 0.6 versus 7.0 +/- 0.5, P = .54; and sacrococcygeal junction to ischial spine right, 7.0 +/- 0.6 versus 6.9 +/- 0.4, P = .32. CONCLUSION: Bony pelvis dimensions are similar at the level of the muscular pelvic floor in white women with and without POP.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare bony pelvis dimensions at the level of pelvic support in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse (POP). STUDY DESIGN: Pelvic floor dimensions of 42 white women with POP > 1 cm beyond the hymen were compared with 42 age- and parity-matched women with normal support. Bony landmarks relevant to connective tissue and levator attachments were identified on magnetic resonance imaging. Dimensions were independently measured by 2 examiners and averaged for each subject. RESULTS: Measurements (in centimeters) for patients and control subjects were as follows: interspinous diameter, 11.2 +/- 0.8 versus 11.1 +/- 0.7, P = .19; anterior-posterior outlet diameter, 11.7 +/- 0.7 versus 11.7 +/- 0.8, P = .71; pubic symphysis to ischial spine left, 9.5 +/- 0.5 versus 9.5 +/- 0.4, P = .91; pubic symphysis to ischial spine right, 9.5 +/- 0.4 versus 9.5 +/- 0.5, P = .81; sacrococcygeal junction to ischial spine left, 7.0 +/- 0.6 versus 7.0 +/- 0.5, P = .54; and sacrococcygeal junction to ischial spine right, 7.0 +/- 0.6 versus 6.9 +/- 0.4, P = .32. CONCLUSION: Bony pelvis dimensions are similar at the level of the muscular pelvic floor in white women with and without POP.
Authors: Andrea Frudinger; Steve Halligan; John A D Spencer; Clive I Bartram; Michael A Kamm; Raimund Winter Journal: BJOG Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Lennox Hoyte; John Thomas; Raymond T Foster; Susan Shott; Marianna Jakab; Alison C Weidner Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: John O L DeLancey; Daniel M Morgan; Dee E Fenner; Rohna Kearney; Kenneth Guire; Janis M Miller; Hero Hussain; Wolfgang Umek; Yvonne Hsu; James A Ashton-Miller Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Victoria L Handa; Harpreet K Pannu; Sohail Siddique; Robert Gutman; Julia VanRooyen; Geoff Cundiff Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Anne G Sammarco; David D Sheyn; Tessa E Krantz; Cedric K Olivera; Antonio A Rodrigues; Ms Emily K Kobernik; Mariana Masteling; John O Delancey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2019-08-08 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: John S Joyce; Sarah Dornak; Jilene M Gendron; Michelle Reyes; Julio C Ruiz; Thomas J Kuehl Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Ekaterina Stansfield; Krishna Kumar; Philipp Mitteroecker; Nicole D S Grunstra Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-04-20 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Deanna C E Sinex; Shaniel T Bowen; Ahmed Kashkoush; Arianna Rosemond; Danielle Carter; Prahlad G Menon; Pamela A Moalli; Steven D Abramowitch Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 7.027