OBJECTIVES: To develop and test a method for measuring the relationship between the rise in intra-abdominal pressure and sagittal plane movements of the anterior and posterior vaginal walls during Valsalva in a pilot sample of women with and without prolapse. METHODS: Mid-sagittal MRI images were obtained during Valsalva while changes in intra-abdominal pressure were measured via a bladder catheter in 5 women with cystocele, 5 women with rectocele, and 5 controls. The regional compliance of the anterior and posterior vagina wall support systems were estimated from the ratio of displacement (mm) of equidistant points along the anterior and posterior vaginal walls to intra-abdominal pressure rise (mmHg). RESULTS: The compliance of both anterior and posterior vaginal wall support systems varied along different regions of vaginal wall for all three groups, with the highest compliance found near the vaginal apex and the lowest near the introitus. Women with cystocele had more compliant anterior and posterior vaginal wall support systems than women with rectocele. The movement direction differs between cystocele and rectocele. In cystocele, the anterior vaginal wall moves mostly toward the vaginal orifice in the upper vagina, but in a ventral direction in the lower vagina. In rectocele, the direction of the posterior vaginal wall movement is generally toward the vaginal orifice. CONCLUSIONS: Movement of the vaginal wall and compliance of its support is quantifiable and was found to vary along the length of the vagina. Compliance was greatest in the upper vagina of all groups. Women with cystocele demonstrated the most compliant vaginal wall support.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and test a method for measuring the relationship between the rise in intra-abdominal pressure and sagittal plane movements of the anterior and posterior vaginal walls during Valsalva in a pilot sample of women with and without prolapse. METHODS: Mid-sagittal MRI images were obtained during Valsalva while changes in intra-abdominal pressure were measured via a bladder catheter in 5 women with cystocele, 5 women with rectocele, and 5 controls. The regional compliance of the anterior and posterior vagina wall support systems were estimated from the ratio of displacement (mm) of equidistant points along the anterior and posterior vaginal walls to intra-abdominal pressure rise (mmHg). RESULTS: The compliance of both anterior and posterior vaginal wall support systems varied along different regions of vaginal wall for all three groups, with the highest compliance found near the vaginal apex and the lowest near the introitus. Women with cystocele had more compliant anterior and posterior vaginal wall support systems than women with rectocele. The movement direction differs between cystocele and rectocele. In cystocele, the anterior vaginal wall moves mostly toward the vaginal orifice in the upper vagina, but in a ventral direction in the lower vagina. In rectocele, the direction of the posterior vaginal wall movement is generally toward the vaginal orifice. CONCLUSIONS: Movement of the vaginal wall and compliance of its support is quantifiable and was found to vary along the length of the vagina. Compliance was greatest in the upper vagina of all groups. Women with cystocele demonstrated the most compliant vaginal wall support.
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: 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: Michel Cosson; Malik Boukerrou; Sophie Lacaze; Eric Lambaudie; Jean Fasel; Henri Mesdagh; Pierre Lobry; Anne Ego Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2003-07-01 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Michel Cosson; Eric Lambaudie; Malik Boukerrou; Pierre Lobry; Gilles Crépin; Anne Ego Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2004-02-10 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Louise T S Arenholt; Bodil Ginnerup Pedersen; Karin Glavind; Marianne Glavind-Kristensen; John O L DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-09-17 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Luyun Chen; Bing Xie; Dee E Fenner; Mary E Duarte Thibault; James A Ashton-Miller; John O DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Stuart Emmerson; Natharnia Young; Anna Rosamilia; Luke Parkinson; Sharon L Edwards; Aditya V Vashi; Miranda Davies-Tuck; Jacinta White; Kirstin Elgass; Camden Lo; John Arkwright; Jerome A Werkmeister; Caroline E Gargett Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-04-04 Impact factor: 4.379