| Literature DB >> 30391992 |
Yi-Cheng Zhu1, Shu-Hao Deng1, Quan Jiang1, Yuan Zhang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study explored symptoms and signs of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) evaluated by 4-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasonography and analyzed the relationship between delivery mode and POP. MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 578 women who underwent 4-dimensional transperineal ultrasound were enrolled in this study. Obstetric history together with other clinical information were gathered from clinical questionnaires and gynecologists. Patients were thereafter classified into 4 groups: women with normal vaginal delivery, women with forceps delivery, women with cesarean, and nullipara women. We assessed symptoms and signs of POP among these 4 groups by use of 2 evaluation methods. The first method was clinical assessment applying International Continence Society (ICS) pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q). The second method was the use of ultrasonography in the quantification of anterior, middle, and posterior compartment prolapse. RESULTS Nulliparae women exhibited the lowest probability of POP (POP-Q: cystocele of 15.6%, uterine prolapse of 11.1%, rectocele of 20.0%; ultrasound exam: 6.7%, 8.9%, 13.3% in sequence), while women with forceps delivery had the highest probability of POP (POP-Q: 59.6%, 50.8%, 63.2% in sequence; ultrasound exam: 45.6%, 52.6%, 42.1% in sequence). Regarding the correlation between POP and delivery mode, the adjusted odds ratio was 2.40 (95%CI: 1.301~4.590) and 3.20 (95%CI: 1.651~6.121) in the normal vaginal delivery group and forceps group, respectively, compared with the cesarean group. CONCLUSIONS Four-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasonography can be used as a preferred method in evaluating POP. Regarding the relationship between delivery mode and POP, there is a significant correlation between vaginal delivery and POP.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30391992 PMCID: PMC6232913 DOI: 10.12659/MSM.911343
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Figure 1Bladder descent at rest (A) and at maximum Valsalva (B).
Figure 2Three-dimensional imaging of levator hiatus.
Figure 3TUI of levator hiatus.
Characteristics and delivery modes of the patients.
| Characteristic | NP (n=45) | CS (n=154) | NVD (n=322) | FD (n=57) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age/year ( | 46.4±19.7 | 50.6±12.5 | 57.1±13.3 | 57.5±12.3 | <0.001 |
| Menopause | 49.1 | 52.6 | 63.1 | 67.4 | <0.001 |
| BMI/(kg·m−2) | 27.3±6.2 | 29.5±6.7 | 29.1±6.2 | 29.2±6.2 | 0.4 |
| Median delivery times (range) | 0 | 2 (1~4) | 3 (1~9) | 2 (1~8) | <0.001 |
The occurrence rate of POP evaluated by POP-Q.
| Category | NP (n=45) | CS (n=154) | NVD (n=322) | FD (n=57) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cystocele | 7 (15.6) | 37 (24.1) | 191 (59.3) | 34 (59.6) | <0.01 |
| POP-Q Stage I | 6 (85.7) | 7 (18.9) | 49 (25.7) | 3 (8.8) | |
| POP-Q Stage II | 1 (14.3) | 21 (56.8) | 87 (45.5) | 9 (26.5) | |
| POP-Q Stage III | 0 (0.0) | 9 (24.3) | 49 (25.7) | 21 (61.8) | |
| POP-Q Stage IV | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 6 (3.1) | 1 (2.9) | |
| Uterine prolapse | 5 (11.1) | 10 (6.4) | 150 (46.5) | 29 (50.8) | <0.01 |
| POP-Q Stage I | 5 (100.0) | 4 (40.0) | 76 (50.7) | 2 (6.9) | |
| POP-Q Stage II | 0 (0.0) | 6 (60.0) | 38 (25.3) | 7 (24.1) | |
| POP-Q Stage III | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 29 (19.3) | 19 (65.5) | |
| POP-Q Stage IV | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 7 (4.7) | 1 (3.4) | |
| Rectocele | 9 (20.0) | 37 (24.0) | 176 (54.6) | 36 (63.2) | <0.01 |
| POP-Q Stage I | 7 (77.8) | 28 (75.7) | 83 (47.2) | 1 (2.8) | |
| POP-Q Stage II | 2 (22.2) | 8 (21.6) | 69 (39.2) | 29 (80.6) | |
| POP-Q Stage III | 0 (0.0) | 1 (2.7) | 19 (10.8) | 5 (13.9) | |
| POP-Q Stage IV | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 5 (2.8) | 1 (2.8) |
Compared with NP, P<0.01;
compared with CS, P<0.01.
POP parameters and occurrence rate by ultrasound exam.
| Parameters | NP (n=45) | CS (n=154) | NVD (n=322) | FD (n=57) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Distance of bladder neck descent l/mm | 22.15±3.58 | 23.06±4.06 | 33.92±4.17 | 36.12±5.59 | <0.01 |
| Angle of urethra rotation l/mm | 132.90±16.76 | 138.62±18.12 | 161.80±20.69 | 178.19±19.65 | <0.01 |
| Distance of cystocele l/mm | 11.35±4.01 | 11.51±3.76 | 23.89±3.71 | 24.01±4.51 | <0.01 |
| Cystocele, n (%) | 3 (6.7) | 20 (13.0) | 142 (44.0) | 26 (45.6) | <0.01 |
| Uterine prolapse, n (%) | 4 (8.9) | 13 (8.5) | 157 (48.8) | 30 (52.6) | <0.01 |
| Rectocele, n (%) | 6 (13.3) | 40 (25.9) | 135 (42.0) | 24 (42.1) | <0.01 |
Compared with NP, P<0.01;
compared with CS, P<0.01;
compared with NVD, P<0.01.