Yannick Hurni1,2, Elise Maes3,4, Fiona Avau3,4, Lauren Becu3,4, Marie Buljubasic4, Alix Danon4, Leila Paquier4, Giulia Garofalo4,5, Valerie Albert3, Ann Pastijn3. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perineal Clinic, CHU Saint-Pierre, Rue Haute 322, 1000, Brussels, Belgium. yhurni@gmail.com. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Obstetric Unit, CHU Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium. yhurni@gmail.com. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Perineal Clinic, CHU Saint-Pierre, Rue Haute 322, 1000, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Obstetric Unit, CHU Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ultrasound Unit, CHU Saint-Pierre, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Obstetric anal sphincter injuries are frequently missed and carry a significant risk for the development of anal incontinence. Immediate postpartum endoanal ultrasound increases identification of these injuries but is rarely employed. We hypothesize that endovaginal ultrasound could be a feasible and easily available alternative sonographic tool to improve early diagnosis of anal sphincter tears. METHODS: We conducted a prospective experimental study including 160 primiparous women. Shortly after vaginal delivery, patients underwent clinical and sonographic perineal examinations. We analyzed the feasibility of anal sphincter assessment by endovaginal ultrasound and its potential contribution in the early diagnosis of anal sphincter injuries. RESULTS: Sonographic assessment of the anal sphincter was analyzable for 136 patients (85.0%). Causes of non-analyzability included air artifacts (6.9%), lack of distinction between the external anal sphincter and surrounding tissues (9.4%) and distortion artifacts (9.4%). Patients in the non-analyzable ultrasound subgroup were less likely to have delivered in a dorsal lithotomy position (62.5% vs. 85.3 %) and more likely to have had an episiotomy (33.3% vs. 14.0%), and their risk of sphincter injury was more frequently classified as "improbable" on clinical examination (91.7% vs. 61.0%). Ultrasounds were analyzable for 96.4% of patients clinically reported as having "possible" or "certain" sphincter injuries. The incidence of anal sphincter injury was 16.9% for clinical observation and 20.0% with associated sonographic examination. CONCLUSIONS: Endovaginal ultrasound could be used as a complementary tool in assessment of the anal sphincter in high-risk patients. Its feasibility and easy availability make this technique a promising tool for improving the management of anal sphincter tears.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Obstetric anal sphincter injuries are frequently missed and carry a significant risk for the development of anal incontinence. Immediate postpartum endoanal ultrasound increases identification of these injuries but is rarely employed. We hypothesize that endovaginal ultrasound could be a feasible and easily available alternative sonographic tool to improve early diagnosis of anal sphincter tears. METHODS: We conducted a prospective experimental study including 160 primiparous women. Shortly after vaginal delivery, patients underwent clinical and sonographic perineal examinations. We analyzed the feasibility of anal sphincter assessment by endovaginal ultrasound and its potential contribution in the early diagnosis of anal sphincter injuries. RESULTS: Sonographic assessment of the anal sphincter was analyzable for 136 patients (85.0%). Causes of non-analyzability included air artifacts (6.9%), lack of distinction between the external anal sphincter and surrounding tissues (9.4%) and distortion artifacts (9.4%). Patients in the non-analyzable ultrasound subgroup were less likely to have delivered in a dorsal lithotomy position (62.5% vs. 85.3 %) and more likely to have had an episiotomy (33.3% vs. 14.0%), and their risk of sphincter injury was more frequently classified as "improbable" on clinical examination (91.7% vs. 61.0%). Ultrasounds were analyzable for 96.4% of patients clinically reported as having "possible" or "certain" sphincter injuries. The incidence of anal sphincter injury was 16.9% for clinical observation and 20.0% with associated sonographic examination. CONCLUSIONS: Endovaginal ultrasound could be used as a complementary tool in assessment of the anal sphincter in high-risk patients. Its feasibility and easy availability make this technique a promising tool for improving the management of anal sphincter tears.