INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to compare puborectal muscle integrity and bulk in women with both major levator ani (LA) defects on MRI and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) to women with normal LA muscle and normal support. METHODS: This is a case-control study comparing 24 cases with known major LA defects and POP to 24 controls with normal LA and normal support. Axial T-2 weighted MRI scans of the pelvis were evaluated for integrity of the puborectal muscle and degree of muscle bulk. RESULTS: There were no significant group differences in age, body mass index, vaginal deliveries, or hysterectomy status. In all 48 subjects, the puborectal muscle was visible and had no disruption noted. There was no difference in muscle bulk between groups (control/case, thin 42% vs. 25%, average 42% vs. 38%, thick-17% vs. 38%; P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Defects and loss of muscle bulk in the puborectal muscle are not seen on MRI in women with major LA defects and POP.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective of this study was to compare puborectal muscle integrity and bulk in women with both major levator ani (LA) defects on MRI and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) to women with normal LA muscle and normal support. METHODS: This is a case-control study comparing 24 cases with known major LA defects and POP to 24 controls with normal LA and normal support. Axial T-2 weighted MRI scans of the pelvis were evaluated for integrity of the puborectal muscle and degree of muscle bulk. RESULTS: There were no significant group differences in age, body mass index, vaginal deliveries, or hysterectomy status. In all 48 subjects, the puborectal muscle was visible and had no disruption noted. There was no difference in muscle bulk between groups (control/case, thin 42% vs. 25%, average 42% vs. 38%, thick-17% vs. 38%; P = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Defects and loss of muscle bulk in the puborectal muscle are not seen on MRI in women with major LA defects and POP.
Authors: Rebecca U Margulies; Yvonne Hsu; Rohna Kearney; Tamara Stein; Wolfgang H Umek; John O L DeLancey Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: S Abbas Shobeiri; Edgar LeClaire; Mikio A Nihira; Lieschen H Quiroz; Daniel O'Donoghue Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 7.661
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: S Albrich; K Rommens; J Steetskamp; V Weyer; G Hoffmann; C Skala; E Zahn Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.915
Authors: Anne G Sammarco; Lahari Nandikanti; Emily K Kobernik; Bing Xie; Alexandra Jankowski; Carolyn W Swenson; John O L DeLancey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Abdul H Sultan; Ash Monga; Joseph Lee; Anton Emmanuel; Christine Norton; Giulio Santoro; Tracy Hull; Bary Berghmans; Stuart Brody; Bernard T Haylen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Jinyong Kim; Cornelia Betschart; Rajeev Ramanah; James A Ashton-Miller; John O L DeLancey Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2014-08-22 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Sissel H Oversand; Anne C Staff; Leiv Sandvik; Ingrid Volløyhaug; Rune Svenningsen Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Marianna Alperin; Mark Cook; Lori J Tuttle; Mary C Esparza; Richard L Lieber Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-03-05 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Fiona M Lindo; Emily S Carr; Michelle Reyes; Jilene M Gendron; Julio C Ruiz; Virginia L Parks; Thomas J Kuehl; Wilma I Larsen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-09-12 Impact factor: 8.661