Mitchell B Berger1, Daniel M Morgan, John O DeLancey. 1. Pelvic Floor Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, mitcberg@umich.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The goal of this study was to use a well-described system of quantifying levator ani defect (LAD) severity using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to examine the relationship between defect severity and the presence or absence of prolapse. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of two case-control studies comparing 284 cases (with prolapse) to 219 controls (normal support) defined by using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) exams. LAD were assessed on MRI, with scores from 0 (no defects) to 6 (complete, bilateral defects). The number of cases and controls at each score were compared. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to quantify relationships between LAD and prolapse. RESULTS: The proportion of cases exceeds the overall prolapse rate in this study at LAD scores ≥3, with higher rates of prolapse at higher LAD scores (p < 0.0000001). Prolapse risk stratifies into low risk at LAD scores 0-2, moderate at 3-5, and high at 6. ROC analysis for classification of prolapse based on LAD scores has an area under the curve of 69.9% (p < 0.001), suggesting LAD alone can discriminate between normal support and prolapse for nearly 70% of patients. Logistic regression identified higher parity and higher LAD scores as independent predictors of prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: There are three clusters of prolapse risk: low (0-2), moderate (3-5), and high (6). Although LAD have a dose-response-like effect for prolapse, other factors are clearly involved.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The goal of this study was to use a well-described system of quantifying levator ani defect (LAD) severity using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to examine the relationship between defect severity and the presence or absence of prolapse. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of two case-control studies comparing 284 cases (with prolapse) to 219 controls (normal support) defined by using Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) exams. LAD were assessed on MRI, with scores from 0 (no defects) to 6 (complete, bilateral defects). The number of cases and controls at each score were compared. Logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to quantify relationships between LAD and prolapse. RESULTS: The proportion of cases exceeds the overall prolapse rate in this study at LAD scores ≥3, with higher rates of prolapse at higher LAD scores (p < 0.0000001). Prolapse risk stratifies into low risk at LAD scores 0-2, moderate at 3-5, and high at 6. ROC analysis for classification of prolapse based on LAD scores has an area under the curve of 69.9% (p < 0.001), suggesting LAD alone can discriminate between normal support and prolapse for nearly 70% of patients. Logistic regression identified higher parity and higher LAD scores as independent predictors of prolapse. CONCLUSIONS: There are three clusters of prolapse risk: low (0-2), moderate (3-5), and high (6). Although LAD have a dose-response-like effect for prolapse, other factors are clearly involved.
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: Daniel M Morgan; Wolfgang Umek; Tamara Stein; Yvonne Hsu; Kenneth Guire; John O L DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2006-10-17
Authors: T A de Boer; M C P Slieker-Ten Hove; C W Burger; K B Kluivers; M E Vierhout Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 2.435
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: Ghazaleh Rostaminia; Dena White; Aparna Hegde; Lieschen H Quiroz; G Willy Davila; S Abbas Shobeiri Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Karin Lammers; Jurgen J Fütterer; Mathias Prokop; Mark E Vierhout; Kirsten B Kluivers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-05-12 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Mitchell B Berger; Giselle E Kolenic; Dee E Fenner; Daniel M Morgan; John O L DeLancey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-02-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kari Bo; Helena C Frawley; Bernard T Haylen; Yoram Abramov; Fernando G Almeida; Bary Berghmans; Maria Bortolini; Chantale Dumoulin; Mario Gomes; Doreen McClurg; Jane Meijlink; Elizabeth Shelly; Emanuel Trabuco; Carolina Walker; Amanda Wells Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2016-12-05 Impact factor: 2.894
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: Emily M English; Luyun Chen; Anne G Sammarco; Giselle E Kolenic; Wenjin Cheng; James A Ashton-Miller; John O DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-01-05 Impact factor: 1.932