INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to determine which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reference line for staging pelvic organ prolapse, the pubococcygeal line (PCL) vs. the midpubic line (MPL), has the highest agreement with clinical staging. METHODS: A retrospective study of women with pelvic floor complaints who underwent dynamic pelvic MRI from January 2004 to April 2007 was conducted. Two radiologists staged descent on MRI for each pelvic compartment (anterior, apical, posterior) by consensus, using PCL and MPL reference lines. Agreement between MRI and clinical staging was estimated using weighted kappas. RESULTS: Twenty women were included. Agreement between clinical and PCL staging was fair in the anterior (kappa = 0.29) and poor in the apical (kappa = 0.03) and posterior (kappa = 0.08) compartments. Agreement between clinical and MPL staging was fair in the anterior (kappa = 0.37), apical (kappa = 0.31), and posterior (kappa = 0.25) compartments. CONCLUSIONS: The MPL has higher agreement with clinical staging than the PCL. However, neither reference line has good agreement with clinical staging.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The aim of the study was to determine which magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) reference line for staging pelvic organ prolapse, the pubococcygeal line (PCL) vs. the midpubic line (MPL), has the highest agreement with clinical staging. METHODS: A retrospective study of women with pelvic floor complaints who underwent dynamic pelvic MRI from January 2004 to April 2007 was conducted. Two radiologists staged descent on MRI for each pelvic compartment (anterior, apical, posterior) by consensus, using PCL and MPL reference lines. Agreement between MRI and clinical staging was estimated using weighted kappas. RESULTS: Twenty women were included. Agreement between clinical and PCL staging was fair in the anterior (kappa = 0.29) and poor in the apical (kappa = 0.03) and posterior (kappa = 0.08) compartments. Agreement between clinical and MPL staging was fair in the anterior (kappa = 0.37), apical (kappa = 0.31), and posterior (kappa = 0.25) compartments. CONCLUSIONS: The MPL has higher agreement with clinical staging than the PCL. However, neither reference line has good agreement with clinical staging.
Authors: R C Bump; A Mattiasson; K Bø; L P Brubaker; J O DeLancey; P Klarskov; B L Shull; A R Smith Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1996-07 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: H S Kaufman; J L Buller; J R Thompson; H K Pannu; S L DeMeester; R R Genadry; D A Bluemke; B Jones; J L Rychcik; G W Cundiff Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Katharina M Bertschinger; Frank H Hetzer; Justus E Roos; Karl Treiber; Borut Marincek; Paul R Hilfiker Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Omer Etlik; Halil Arslan; Oner Odabaşi; Hulya Odabaşi; Mustafa Harman; Hacer Celebi; M Emin Sakarya Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Robin M F van der Weiden; Elena Rociu; Guido H H Mannaerts; Marcel H A van Hooff; Mark E Vierhout; Mariella I J Withagen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Bing Xie; Luyun Chen; Zhuowei Xue; Emily M English; Dee E Fenner; Kara Gaetke-Udager; Giselle E Kolenic; James A Ashton-Miller; John O DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Sarah A Collins; Michele O'Shea; Nicola Dykes; Olga Ramm; Autumn Edenfield; Ka Lai Shek; Kim van Delft; Molly Beestrum; Kimberly Kenton Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Julie A Tumbarello; Yvonne Hsu; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Suzan Rohrer; John O L DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: L Ramage; C Simillis; C Yen; C Lutterodt; S Qiu; E Tan; C Kontovounisios; P Tekkis Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Mariëlle M E Lakeman; F M Zijta; J Peringa; A J Nederveen; J Stoker; J P W R Roovers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 2.894