Lahari Nandikanti1, Anne G Sammarco2, Luyun Chen3, James A Ashton-Miller3, John O DeLancey4. 1. School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 2. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. delancey@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study was aimed at measuring levator ani bowl volume at rest and while straining, comparing women with and without prolapse (controls), and assessing the ability of measures of the mid-sagittal bowl area, levator hiatus (LH), and urogenital hiatus (UGH) to predict bowl volume. METHODS: Forty MRI scans previously acquired in case-control prolapse studies, including 20 women with prolapse and 20 women without prolapse, of similar age and parity, were selected. 3D models of rest and strain bowl volumes were made using sagittal scans and 3D Slicer®. Mid-sagittal bowl area, UGH, and LH were measured using ImageJ. Data were analyzed using two sample t tests, effect sizes, and Pearson's correlation coefficients at the 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: Data were acquired in a total of 40 total women. Levator bowl volume at strain had a correlation coefficient of 0.5 with bowl volume at rest. During straining, prolapse subjects had a 53% larger bowl volume than control subjects (254 ± 86 cm3 vs 166 ± 44 cm3, p < 0.001), but at rest, the difference was 34% (138 ± 40 cm3 vs 103 ± 25 cm3, p = 0.002). Effect sizes for all parameters were large (d > 0.75). The strongest correlation with straining bowl volume was mid-sagittal straining bowl area (r = 0.86), followed by LH strain (r = 0.80), then UGH strain (r = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Straining levator bowl volume is substantially different than measures made at rest, with only a quarter of straining values explained by resting measurements. The bowl area at strain is the best 2D measurement estimating bowl volume and explains 74% of straining bowl volume.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study was aimed at measuring levator ani bowl volume at rest and while straining, comparing women with and without prolapse (controls), and assessing the ability of measures of the mid-sagittal bowl area, levator hiatus (LH), and urogenital hiatus (UGH) to predict bowl volume. METHODS: Forty MRI scans previously acquired in case-control prolapse studies, including 20 women with prolapse and 20 women without prolapse, of similar age and parity, were selected. 3D models of rest and strain bowl volumes were made using sagittal scans and 3D Slicer®. Mid-sagittal bowl area, UGH, and LH were measured using ImageJ. Data were analyzed using two sample t tests, effect sizes, and Pearson's correlation coefficients at the 0.05 significance level. RESULTS: Data were acquired in a total of 40 total women. Levator bowl volume at strain had a correlation coefficient of 0.5 with bowl volume at rest. During straining, prolapse subjects had a 53% larger bowl volume than control subjects (254 ± 86 cm3 vs 166 ± 44 cm3, p < 0.001), but at rest, the difference was 34% (138 ± 40 cm3 vs 103 ± 25 cm3, p = 0.002). Effect sizes for all parameters were large (d > 0.75). The strongest correlation with straining bowl volume was mid-sagittal straining bowl area (r = 0.86), followed by LH strain (r = 0.80), then UGH strain (r = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Straining levator bowl volume is substantially different than measures made at rest, with only a quarter of straining values explained by resting measurements. The bowl area at strain is the best 2D measurement estimating bowl volume and explains 74% of straining bowl volume.
Authors: Anne G Sammarco; Lahari Nandikanti; Emily K Kobernik; Bing Xie; Alexandra Jankowski; Carolyn W Swenson; John O L DeLancey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Luyun Chen; Sean Lisse; Kindra Larson; Mitchell B Berger; James A Ashton-Miller; John O L DeLancey Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 7.661
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: Ingrid Nygaard; Linda Brubaker; Halina M Zyczynski; Geoffrey Cundiff; Holly Richter; Marie Gantz; Paul Fine; Shawn Menefee; Beri Ridgeway; Anthony Visco; Lauren Klein Warren; Min Zhang; Susan Meikle Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-05-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Allison M Wyman; Antonio A Rodrigues; Lindsey Hahn; Kristie A Greene; Renee Bassaly; Stuart Hart; Branko Miladinovic; Lennox Hoyte Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-11-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Monique H Vaughan; Nazema Y Siddiqui; Laura K Newcomb; Alison C Weidner; Amie Kawasaki; Anthony G Visco; Megan S Bradley Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Luyun Chen; Carolyn W Swenson; Wenjin Cheng; Mary Duarte Thibault; John O DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-05-03 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Wenjin Cheng; Emily English; Whitney Horner; Carolyn W Swenson; Luyun Chen; Fernanda Pipitone; James A Ashton-Miller; John O L DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 1.932
Authors: Christopher X Hong; Elana Meer; Max Cioban; David J Tischfield; Daisy B Hassani; Heidi S Harvie Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 2.894