INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We wanted to show that at the time of cesarean delivery, the active process of labor itself was sufficient to create early alterations of the pelvic floor musculature as detectable via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Thirty primipara patients underwent pelvic MRI between the second and third day after cesarean delivery. Ten patients had a cesarean without labor while 20 patients underwent urgent cesarean delivery after the onset of labor. RESULTS: Patients undergoing active labor during cesarean had 2.7 times more abnormalities than the patients with cesareans without labor. The abnormalities the most frequently found were a hypersignal in the puborectalis (p = .004), a hypersignal in the iliococcygeus (p = .064) and a defect in the orientation of this same muscular bundle (p = .049). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that active labor during the time of a cesarean induces early lesions of the pelvic muscular floor.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We wanted to show that at the time of cesarean delivery, the active process of labor itself was sufficient to create early alterations of the pelvic floor musculature as detectable via magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: Thirty primipara patients underwent pelvic MRI between the second and third day after cesarean delivery. Ten patients had a cesarean without labor while 20 patients underwent urgent cesarean delivery after the onset of labor. RESULTS:Patients undergoing active labor during cesarean had 2.7 times more abnormalities than the patients with cesareans without labor. The abnormalities the most frequently found were a hypersignal in the puborectalis (p = .004), a hypersignal in the iliococcygeus (p = .064) and a defect in the orientation of this same muscular bundle (p = .049). CONCLUSION: This preliminary study suggests that active labor during the time of a cesarean induces early lesions of the pelvic muscular floor.
Authors: Ralf Tunn; John O l Delancey; Denise Howard; James A Ashton-Miller; Leslie E Quint Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Christine Macarthur; Charis Glazener; Robert Lancashire; Peter Herbison; Don Wilson; Adrian Grant Journal: BJOG Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 6.531
Authors: Susanne Wurdinger; Kathrin Humbsch; Jürgen R Reichenbach; Gertrud Peiker; Hans-Joachim Seewald; Werner A Kaiser Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: J L Fleckenstein; D Watumull; K E Conner; M Ezaki; R G Greenlee; W W Bryan; D P Chason; R W Parkey; R M Peshock; P D Purdy Journal: Radiology Date: 1993-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Virginia Branham; John Thomas; Tracy Jaffe; Michele Crockett; Mary South; Margaret Jamison; Alison Weidner Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 8.661