Literature DB >> 25415171

Translabial three-dimensional ultrasonography compared with magnetic resonance imaging in detecting levator ani defects.

Kim J B Notten1, Kirsten B Kluivers, Jurgen J Fütterer, Karlijn J Schweitzer, Jaap Stoker, Femke E Mulder, Regina G Beets-Tan, Roy F A Vliegen, Patrick M Bossuyt, Roy F P M Kruitwagen, Jan-Paul W R Roovers, Mirjam Weemhoff.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the diagnostic performance of translabial three-dimensional ultrasonography in detecting major levator ani defects in women with pelvic organ prolapse compared with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to assess the interobserver agreement in detecting levator ani defects with translabial three-dimensional ultrasonography.
METHODS: In a multicenter cohort study, 140 women indicated for primary surgery of pelvic organ prolapse quantification stage II or more cystocele were included. Patients undergoing mesh surgery or concomitant stress incontinence surgery were excluded. All consenting patients underwent translabial three-dimensional ultrasonography and MRI of the pelvic floor before surgery. Two observers (out of a pool of four observers) assessed translabial three-dimensional ultrasound images; two other observers (out a pool of five observers) assessed MRIs for levator ani muscle damage. In case of disagreement, the images were discussed in a consensus meeting.
RESULTS: Of the 135 scans, 45 major levator ani defects were detected on ultrasonogram (33.3%) and 32 were confirmed at MRI (23.7%). Of the 41 major levator ani defects detected on MRI, nine were missed at translabial three-dimensional ultrasonogram. Sensitivity was 0.78 (32 of 41) (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-0.91) and specificity was 0.86 (81 of 94) (95% CI 0.79-0.93) in detecting major levator ani defects with translabial three-dimensional ultrasonography compared with MRI. There was good agreement scoring levator ani defects on translabial three-dimensional ultrasonography, with a κ of 0.67 (95% CI 0.58-0.76); agreement in recognizing major levator ani defects was moderate, with a κ of 0.53 (95% CI 0.37-0.69).
CONCLUSION: Translabial three-dimensional ultrasonography shows reasonable agreement with MRI in detecting major levator defects. Because of the moderate interobserver agreement, it will be difficult to implement ultrasonography in daily practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, www.trialregister.nl, NTR2220.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25415171     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000560

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  12 in total

1.  Comparing 3-Dimensional Ultrasound to 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Detection of Levator Ani Defects.

Authors:  Camille S Calderwood; Amy Thurmond; Amanda Holland; Blake Osmundsen; W Thomas Gregory
Journal:  Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg       Date:  2018 Jul/Aug       Impact factor: 2.091

2.  Can 3D power Doppler identify levator ani vascularization at its pubic insertion?

Authors:  J Cassadó Garriga; L Quintas Marques; A Pessarrodona Isern; E López Quesada; M Rodriguez Carballeira; A Badia Carrasco
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2015-03-31       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 3.  A review of the impact of pregnancy and childbirth on pelvic floor function as assessed by objective measurement techniques.

Authors:  Hans Van Geelen; Donald Ostergard; Peter Sand
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-01-13       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 4.  Family history and pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Parisa Samimi; Sarah H Jones; Ayush Giri
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2020-10-21       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Comparison of translabial three-dimensional ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the grading of levator ani defects.

Authors:  Yijia Luo; Linxin Yang; Ning Lin; Zhihua Fan
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Recurrence risk is associated with preoperatively advanced prolapse stage: Is there a difference between women with stage 2 and those with stage 3 or 4 cystocele?

Authors:  Tineke F M Vergeldt; Kim J B Notten; Kirsten B Kluivers; Mirjam Weemhoff
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Perineal Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Detection for Evaluation of Pelvic Diaphragm in Resting State.

Authors:  Xudong Wang; Min Ren; Yujie Liu; Tiecheng Zhang; Jiawei Tian
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2018-06-28

8.  Concordance of tomographic ultrasound and multiplanar ultrasound in detecting levator ani muscle injury in patients with pelvic organ prolapse.

Authors:  Weisi Lai; Lieming Wen; Yinbo Li; Xinghua Huang; Zhenzhen Qing
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Evaluation of two vaginal, uterus sparing operations for pelvic organ prolapse: modified Manchester operation (MM) and sacrospinous hysteropexy (SSH), a study protocol for a multicentre randomized non-inferiority trial (the SAM study).

Authors:  Sascha F M Schulten; Rosa A Enklaar; Kirsten B Kluivers; Sanne A L van Leijsen; Marijke C Jansen-van der Weide; Eddy M M Adang; Jeroen van Bavel; Heleen van Dongen; Maaike B E Gerritse; Iris van Gestel; G G Alec Malmberg; Ronald J C Mouw; Deliana A van Rumpt-van de Geest; Wilbert A Spaans; Annemarie van der Steen; Jelle Stekelenburg; E Stella M Tiersma; Anneke C Verkleij-Hagoort; Astrid Vollebregt; Chantal B M Wingen; Mirjam Weemhoff; Hugo W F van Eijndhoven
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 2.809

10.  Longitudinal Study of Pelvic Floor Characteristics Before, During, and After Pregnancy in Nulliparous Women.

Authors:  Ioana-Claudia Lakovschek; Gerda Trutnovsky; Barbara Obermayer-Pietsch; Daniela Gold
Journal:  J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2021-03-07       Impact factor: 2.754

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.