Christopher X Hong1, Elana Meer2, Max Cioban3, David J Tischfield4, Daisy B Hassani5, Heidi S Harvie5. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pennsylvania Hospital, 800 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, USA. christopher.hong@pennmedicine.upenn.edu. 2. Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that there are differences in the position and orientation of ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing MRI findings in 25 women with pessaries in situ at the time of imaging. Scanner coordinates for anatomic and pessary landmarks were obtained and transformed to 3D Pelvic Inclination Correction System coordinates using MATLAB software. The normal vector to the pessary disc was computed and compared to the positive y-axis in the sagittal and coronal planes to determine XY and YZ disc angles, respectively. Comparisons between groups were made using Wilcoxon rank, Fisher's exact, and Brown-Forsythe tests. RESULTS: Twenty-one women with ring pessaries and four women with Gellhorn pessaries met inclusion criteria for the study. Women with ring pessaries were younger (68.4 vs. 80.7 years, p = 0.003) but had similar BMI, vaginal parity, history of hysterectomy, and anatomic characteristics. Ring pessaries had a smaller diameter (59.5 vs. 79.3 mm, p = 0.004) and were positioned further posterior with respect to the inferior pubic point (midpoint X position 42.6 vs. 29.5 mm, p = 0.004). There were significant differences in the magnitude and variance of the XY disc angle (57.0 ± 14.0 vs. -1.2 ± 2.8 degrees, p = 0.002 for magnitude, p = 0.012 for variance) but not the YZ disc angle (3.3 ± 30.6 vs. 1.5 ± 7.7 degrees, p > 0.05 for both) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found differences in the position and orientation between ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ using an anatomic 3D reference system. These findings provide insight into the mechanism of action of vaginal pessaries.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that there are differences in the position and orientation of ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing MRI findings in 25 women with pessaries in situ at the time of imaging. Scanner coordinates for anatomic and pessary landmarks were obtained and transformed to 3D Pelvic Inclination Correction System coordinates using MATLAB software. The normal vector to the pessary disc was computed and compared to the positive y-axis in the sagittal and coronal planes to determine XY and YZ disc angles, respectively. Comparisons between groups were made using Wilcoxon rank, Fisher's exact, and Brown-Forsythe tests. RESULTS: Twenty-one women with ring pessaries and four women with Gellhorn pessaries met inclusion criteria for the study. Women with ring pessaries were younger (68.4 vs. 80.7 years, p = 0.003) but had similar BMI, vaginal parity, history of hysterectomy, and anatomic characteristics. Ring pessaries had a smaller diameter (59.5 vs. 79.3 mm, p = 0.004) and were positioned further posterior with respect to the inferior pubic point (midpoint X position 42.6 vs. 29.5 mm, p = 0.004). There were significant differences in the magnitude and variance of the XY disc angle (57.0 ± 14.0 vs. -1.2 ± 2.8 degrees, p = 0.002 for magnitude, p = 0.012 for variance) but not the YZ disc angle (3.3 ± 30.6 vs. 1.5 ± 7.7 degrees, p > 0.05 for both) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: We found differences in the position and orientation between ring and Gellhorn pessaries in situ using an anatomic 3D reference system. These findings provide insight into the mechanism of action of vaginal pessaries.
Authors: Lahari Nandikanti; Anne G Sammarco; Luyun Chen; James A Ashton-Miller; John O DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2019-06-20 Impact factor: 2.894
Authors: Marta E Heilbrun; Ingrid E Nygaard; Mark E Lockhart; Holly E Richter; Morton B Brown; Kimberley S Kenton; David D Rahn; John V Thomas; Alison C Weidner; Charles W Nager; John O Delancey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-03-12 Impact factor: 8.661
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: Caecilia S Reiner; Tom Williamson; Thomas Winklehner; Sean Lisse; Daniel Fink; John O L DeLancey; Cornelia Betschart Journal: Comput Med Imaging Graph Date: 2017-06-03 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Camille P Vaughan; Patricia S Goode; David T Redden; Kathryn L Burgio; Holly E Richter; Alayne D Markland Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Lisan M Morsinkhof; Martine K Schulten; John O L DeLancey; Frank F J Simonis; Anique T M Grob Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-07-30 Impact factor: 1.932