Carolyn W Swenson1, Mariana Masteling2, John O DeLancey3, Lahari Nandikanti4, Payton Schmidt3, Luyun Chen5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. scarolyn@med.umich.edu. 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 4. School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We sought to determine age-related changes to the pelvic floor in the absence of childbirth effects. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted from June 2017 to August 2018 comparing two groups of nulliparous women: <40 years old and ≥ 70 years old. Clinical evaluation included POP-Q, instrumented speculum testing, and handgrip strength. Dynamic 3D-stress MRI was performed on all women to obtain genital and levator hiatus (LH) lengths, LH area, and levator bowl volume. LH shape was quantified using a novel measure called the "V-U index." Pubovisceral muscle (PVM) cross-sectional area (CSA) was also measured. Bivariate comparisons between the two groups were made for all variables. Effect sizes were calculated for MRI measurements. RESULTS: Twelve young and 9 older nulliparous women were included. Levator bowl volume at rest was 83% larger in older women (108.0 ± 34.5 cm3 vs 59.2 ± 19.3 cm3, p = 0.001, d = 1.82). MRI genital hiatus at rest was larger among the older group (2.7 ± 0.6 cm vs 3.5 ± 0.6 cm, p = 0.007, d = 1.34). V-U index, a measure of LH shape where 0 = "V" and 1 = "U," differed between groups indicating a more "U"-like shape among older women (0.71 ± 0.23 vs 0.35 ± 0.18, p = 0.001, d = 1.72). Handgrip strength was lower in the older vs young group (23.2 ± 5.2 N vs 33.4 ± 5.2 N, p < 0.0001); however, the Kegel augmentation force and PVM CSA were similar (3.2 ± 1.1 N vs 3.3 ± 2.2 N, p = 0.89, and 0.8 ± 0.3 cm2 vs 0.7 ± 0.2 cm2, p = 0.23 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Levator bowl volume at rest was over 80% larger among older women, reflecting a generalized posterior distension with age.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We sought to determine age-related changes to the pelvic floor in the absence of childbirth effects. METHODS: A case-control study was conducted from June 2017 to August 2018 comparing two groups of nulliparous women: <40 years old and ≥ 70 years old. Clinical evaluation included POP-Q, instrumented speculum testing, and handgrip strength. Dynamic 3D-stress MRI was performed on all women to obtain genital and levator hiatus (LH) lengths, LH area, and levator bowl volume. LH shape was quantified using a novel measure called the "V-U index." Pubovisceral muscle (PVM) cross-sectional area (CSA) was also measured. Bivariate comparisons between the two groups were made for all variables. Effect sizes were calculated for MRI measurements. RESULTS: Twelve young and 9 older nulliparous women were included. Levator bowl volume at rest was 83% larger in older women (108.0 ± 34.5 cm3 vs 59.2 ± 19.3 cm3, p = 0.001, d = 1.82). MRI genital hiatus at rest was larger among the older group (2.7 ± 0.6 cm vs 3.5 ± 0.6 cm, p = 0.007, d = 1.34). V-U index, a measure of LH shape where 0 = "V" and 1 = "U," differed between groups indicating a more "U"-like shape among older women (0.71 ± 0.23 vs 0.35 ± 0.18, p = 0.001, d = 1.72). Handgrip strength was lower in the older vs young group (23.2 ± 5.2 N vs 33.4 ± 5.2 N, p < 0.0001); however, the Kegel augmentation force and PVM CSA were similar (3.2 ± 1.1 N vs 3.3 ± 2.2 N, p = 0.89, and 0.8 ± 0.3 cm2 vs 0.7 ± 0.2 cm2, p = 0.23 respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Levator bowl volume at rest was over 80% larger among older women, reflecting a generalized posterior distension with age.
Entities:
Keywords:
Aging; Genital hiatus; Levator area; Levator bowl volume; MRI; Pelvic organ support
Authors: Elisa Rodriguez Trowbridge; John T Wei; Dee E Fenner; James A Ashton-Miller; John O L Delancey Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Marianna Alperin; Mark Cook; Lori J Tuttle; Mary C Esparza; Richard L Lieber Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2016-03-05 Impact factor: 8.661
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: 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
Authors: Maria C P Vila Pouca; João P S Ferreira; Marco P L Parente; Renato M Natal Jorge; James A Ashton-Miller Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 10.693
Authors: Monica Albaladejo-Belmonte; Marta Tarazona-Motes; Francisco J Nohales-Alfonso; Maria De-Arriba; Jose Alberola-Rubio; Javier Garcia-Casado Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2021-03-23 Impact factor: 3.576