Advertisement

International Urogynecology Journal

, Volume 26, Issue 11, pp 1667–1672 | Cite as

The repeatability of sonographic measures of functional pelvic floor anatomy

  • Li Tan
  • Ka Lai Shek
  • Ixora Kamisan Atan
  • Rodrigo Guzman Rojas
  • Hans Peter DietzEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Translabial 3D/4D ultrasound is increasingly being used in the diagnostic evaluation of pelvic floor dysfunction. The result of the assessment is influenced by a number of confounders that are generally unrecognised. The aim of this study was to determine the short- to medium-term repeatability of translabial ultrasound measures of female pelvic organ support and pelvic floor anatomy.

Methods

This is a retrospective study analyzing archived ultrasound volume datasets of 106 patients with pelvic floor dysfunction. Every subject was assessed twice at an average interval of 73 days. Outcome measures including hiatal area on Valsalva, descent of the bladder neck, bladder, uterus and rectal ampulla, rectocele depth, diagnosis of true rectocele, and levator integrity (avulsion) were compared at the first and second appointments.

Results

All parameters of organ descent demonstrated good to excellent reliability (ICC 0.73–0.93) except for rectocele descent, which showed moderate reliability (ICC 0.44, CI 0.26–0.58). The most highly repeatable measure was hiatal area on Valsalva or “ballooning” (ICC 0.93, CI 0.90–0.95). For the diagnosis of levator avulsion and true rectocele, agreement was very high (kappa 0.91 for avulsion (CI 0.77–0.94) and kappa 0.73 (CI 0.56–0.84) for true rectocele).

Conclusions

The short- to medium-term repeatability of translabial ultrasound measures of functional pelvic floor anatomy seems to be high. Hiatal area on Valsalva (ballooning) and diagnosis of levator avulsion were the most repeatable measures. The least repeatable measures related to the posterior compartment.

Keywords

Repeatability Female pelvic organ prolapse Translabial ultrasound Pelvic floor Levator avulsion 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

H.P. Dietz and K.L. Shek have received unrestricted educational grants from GE Medical.

References

  1. 1.
    Dietz HP (2011) Pelvic floor ultrasound in prolapse: What’s in it for the surgeon? Int Urogynecol J 22:1221–1232CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dietz HP (2011) Pelvic floor ultrasound in incontinence: What’s in it for the surgeon? Int Urogynecol J 22(9):1085–1097CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoff Braekken I, Majida M, Ellstrom-Engh M, Dietz HP, Umek W, Bo K (2008) Test-retest and intra-observer repeatability of two-, three- and four-dimensional perineal ultrasound of pelvic floor muscle anatomy and function. Int Urogynecol J 19:227–235Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen R, Song Y, Jiang L, Hong X, Ye P (2011) The assessment of voluntary pelvic floor muscle contraction by three-dimensional transperineal ultrasonography. Arch Gynecol Obstet 284:931–936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dietz H, Shek K, Clarke B (2005) Biometry of the pubovisceral muscle and levator hiatus by three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:580–585CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dietz H, De Leon J, Shek K (2008) Ballooning of the levator hiatus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:676–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peschers UM, Fanger G, Schaer GN, Vodusek DB, DeLancey JO, Schuessler B (2001) Bladder neck mobility in continent nulliparous women. BJOG 108(3):320–324PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Siafarikas F, Staer-Jensen J, Braekken I, Bo K, Engh M (2013) Learning process for performing and analyzing 3D/4D transperineal ultrasound imaging and interobserver reliability study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 41(3):312–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zhuang R, Song Y, Chen Q, Ma M, Huang H, Chen J et al (2011) Levator avulsion using a tomographic ultrasound and magnetic resonance-based model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:232.e1–232.e8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175(1):10–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dietz H (2004) Ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor. II. Three-dimensional or volume imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 23(6):615–625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Orejuela F, Shek K, Dietz H (2012) The time factor in the assessment of prolapse and levator ballooning. Int Urogynecol J 23:175–178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oerno A, Dietz H (2007) Levator co-activation is a significant confounder of pelvic organ descent on Valsalva maneuver. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:346–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dietz HP, Haylen BT, Broome J (2001) Ultrasound in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 18(5):511–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dietz HP, Steensma AB (2005) Posterior compartment prolapse on two-dimensional and three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound: the distinction between true rectocele, perineal hypermobility and enterocele. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:73–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dietz H, Bernardo M, Kirby A, Shek K (2011) Minimal criteria for the diagnosis of avulsion of the puborectalis muscle by tomographic ultrasound. Int Urogynecol J 22(6):699–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dietz H, Abbu A, Shek K (2008) The levator urethral gap measurement: a more objective means of determining levator avulsion? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 32:941–945CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between measurement. Biochim Clin 11:399–404Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Veelen G, Schweitzer K, Van Der Vaart C (2013) Reliability of pelvic floor measurements on three- and four-dimensional ultrasound during and after first pregnancy: implications for training. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 42:590–595CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dietz H, Guzman Rojas R, Shek K (2014) Postprocessing of pelvic floor ultrasound data: how repeatable is it? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 54(6):553–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dietz HP, Wilson PD, Clarke B (2001) The use of perineal ultrasound to quantify levator activity and teach pelvic floor muscle exercises. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12(3):166–168, discussion 8–9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dietz H, Wong V, Shek KL (2011) A simplified method for determining hiatal biometry. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 51:540–543CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Li Tan
    • 1
  • Ka Lai Shek
    • 2
    • 3
  • Ixora Kamisan Atan
    • 3
  • Rodrigo Guzman Rojas
    • 4
    • 5
  • Hans Peter Dietz
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Ultrasound, Peking Union Medical College HospitalChinese Academy of Medical SciencesBeijingChina
  2. 2.Liverpool HospitalUniversity of Western SydneySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.Sydney Medical School NepeanUniversity of Sydney, Nepean HospitalPenrithAustralia
  4. 4.Departamento de Ginecología y Obstetricia, Facultad de MedicinaClínica Alemana, Universidad del DesarrolloSantiagoChile
  5. 5.Departamento de Ginecología y ObstetriciaHospital Clínico de la Universidad de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations