Jiajia Luo1,2,3, Cornelia Betschart4,5,6, James A Ashton-Miller4,7, John O L DeLancey4,6. 1. Pelvic Floor Research Group, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. jjluo@umich.edu. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. jjluo@umich.edu. 3. Biomechanics Research Laboratory, 2350 Hayward Street, GG Brown Building 3449, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. jjluo@umich.edu. 4. Pelvic Floor Research Group, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 5. Department of Gynecology, University Hospital of Zurich, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Division of Gynecology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 7. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We present a technique for quantifying inter-individual variability in normal vaginal shape, axis, and dimension, and report findings in healthy women. METHODS: Eighty women (age: 28∼70 years) with normal pelvic organ support underwent supine, multi-planar proton-density MRI. Vaginal width was assessed at five evenly-spaced locations, and vaginal axis, length, and surface area were quantified via ImageJ and MATLAB. RESULTS: The mid-sagittal plane angles, relative to the horizontal, of three vaginal axes were 90 ± 11, 72 ± 21, and 41 ± 22° (caudal to cranial, p < 0.001). The mean (± SD) vaginal widths were 17 ± 5, 24 ± 4, 30 ± 7, 41 ± 9, and 45 ± 12 mm at the five locations (caudal to cranial, p < 0.001). Mid-sagittal lengths for anterior and posterior vaginal walls were 63 ± 9 and 98 ± 18 mm respectively. The vaginal surface area was 72 ± 21 cm(2) (range: 34 ∼ 164 cm(2)). The coefficient of determination between any demographic variable and any vaginal dimension did not exceed 0.16. CONCLUSIONS: Large variations in normal vaginal shape, axis, and dimensions were not explained by body size or other demographic variables. This variation has implications for reconstructive surgery, intravaginal and surgical product design, and vaginal drug delivery.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We present a technique for quantifying inter-individual variability in normal vaginal shape, axis, and dimension, and report findings in healthy women. METHODS: Eighty women (age: 28∼70 years) with normal pelvic organ support underwent supine, multi-planar proton-density MRI. Vaginal width was assessed at five evenly-spaced locations, and vaginal axis, length, and surface area were quantified via ImageJ and MATLAB. RESULTS: The mid-sagittal plane angles, relative to the horizontal, of three vaginal axes were 90 ± 11, 72 ± 21, and 41 ± 22° (caudal to cranial, p < 0.001). The mean (± SD) vaginal widths were 17 ± 5, 24 ± 4, 30 ± 7, 41 ± 9, and 45 ± 12 mm at the five locations (caudal to cranial, p < 0.001). Mid-sagittal lengths for anterior and posterior vaginal walls were 63 ± 9 and 98 ± 18 mm respectively. The vaginal surface area was 72 ± 21 cm(2) (range: 34 ∼ 164 cm(2)). The coefficient of determination between any demographic variable and any vaginal dimension did not exceed 0.16. CONCLUSIONS: Large variations in normal vaginal shape, axis, and dimensions were not explained by body size or other demographic variables. This variation has implications for reconstructive surgery, intravaginal and surgical product design, and vaginal drug delivery.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anatomy; Dimension; Magnetic resonance imaging; Shape; Vagina; Vaginal axis
Authors: J L Buller; J R Thompson; G W Cundiff; L Krueger Sullivan; M A Schön Ybarra; A E Bent Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Rahel Nardos; Amy S Thurmond; Teresa R Worstell; Amanda L Clark; W Thomas Gregory Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Noelani M Guaderrama; Charles W Nager; Jianmin Liu; Dolores H Pretorius; Ravinder K Mittal Journal: Neurourol Urodyn Date: 2005 Impact factor: 2.696
Authors: Jasmine S Tan; Emily S Lukacz; Shawn A Menefee; Karl M Luber; Michael E Albo; Charles W Nager Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2006-10-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jiajia Luo; Kindra A Larson; Dee E Fenner; James A Ashton-Miller; John O L DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2012-04-24 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Kurt T Barnhart; Adriana Izquierdo; E Scott Pretorius; David M Shera; Mayadah Shabbout; Alka Shaunik Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2006-02-14 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Akbar Alipour; Akila N Viswanathan; Ronald D Watkins; Hassan Elahi; Wolfgang Loew; Eric Meyer; Marc Morcos; Henry R Halperin; Ehud J Schmidt Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Deanna C E Sinex; Shaniel T Bowen; Ahmed Kashkoush; Arianna Rosemond; Danielle Carter; Prahlad G Menon; Pamela A Moalli; Steven D Abramowitch Journal: Comput Methods Programs Biomed Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 7.027
Authors: Jennifer M McCracken; Gisele A Calderon; Andrew J Robinson; Courtney N Sullivan; Elizabeth Cosgriff-Hernandez; Julie C E Hakim Journal: Reprod Sci Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 2.924