Advertisement

Perineal ultrasound for the measurement of urethral mobility: a study of inter- and intra-observer reliability

  • Anne-Cécile PizzoferratoEmail author
  • Krystel Nyangoh Timoh
  • Georges Bader
  • Julie Fort
  • Xavier Fritel
  • Arnaud Fauconnier
Original Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Ultrasound measurement of urethral mobility is an attractive approach to directly visualize bladder neck descent (BND) during stress. BND assessed by transperineal ultrasound appears to be associated with stress urinary incontinence (SUI) severity. This study evaluated the inter- and intra-observer reliability of ultrasound BND measurement and its correlation with clinical examination.

Methods

We included 50 women from the multicenter randomized 3PN study (“Prenatal Perineal Prevention”). BND was measured by two operators either during pregnancy (at 20 weeks of gestation) or 2 months after delivery. Two measurements were taken by each operator. Intra-class coefficient correlations were used for analysis. Urethral mobility was clinically assessed by measuring the point Aa of the POP-Q classification during maximum strain (Valsalva maneuver) with an empty bladder.

Results

Ultrasound analysis showed high intra-observer reliability in the overall population: intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) = 0.75 (0.59–0.85) and 0.73 (0.55–0.84) for each operator. Intra-observer agreements were considered moderate to high in the post- and antepartum groups. Inter-observer agreements were moderate in the antepartum period [ICC = 0.58 (0.26–0.78) for the first measurement and 0.68 (0.42–0.84) for the second] but low in the postpartum period [ICC = 0.15 (0.10–0.41) and 0.21 (0.10–0.58)]. Correlations between ultrasound and clinical measurements were considered low to moderate (Spearman coefficient, rho = 0.34 and 0.50 for post- and antepartum periods, respectively).

Conclusions

Inter-observer reliability of ultrasound urethral mobility measurements by the transperineal route is moderate antepartum and low postpartum. The correlation with point Aa is low to moderate.

Keywords

Urethral mobility Perineal sonography Reliability Bladder neck distance 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Minassian VA, Drutz HP, Al-Badr A. Urinary incontinence as a worldwide problem. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;82:327–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S. A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study Epidemiology of Incontinence in the Country of Nord-Trondelag. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:1150–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DeLancey JO, Trowbridge ER, Miller JM, Morgan DM, Guire K, Fenner DE, et al. Stress urinary incontinence: relative importance of urethral support and urethral closure pressure. J Urol. 2008;179(6):2286–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DeLancey JO. Structural support of the urethra as it relates to stress urinary incontinence: the hammock hypothesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170(6):1713–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karram MM, Bhatia NN. The Q-tip test: standardization of the technique and its interpretation in women with urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1988;71:807–11.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tapp K, Connolly A, Visco AG. Evaluation of aa point and cotton-tipped swab test as predictors of urodynamic stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosencrantz M, Menefee SA, Lukacz ES. The correlation of urethral mobility and point aa of the pelvic organ prolapse quantification sys- tem before and after surgery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;195:1841–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Noblett K, Lane FL, Driskill CS. Does pelvic prolapse quantification exam predicts urethral mobility in stages 0 and I prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16:268–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pizzoferrato AC, Fauconnier A, Bader G. Value of ultrasonographic measurement of bladder neck mobility in the management of female stress urinary incontinence. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2011;39(1):42–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dietz HP, Steensma AB, Eldridge A, Grace M, Clarke B. Test-retest and interrater reliability of the ultrasound assessment of bladder neck mobility. In: International Urogynecological association (IUGA) conference; 2003.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritel X, Fauconnier A, de Tayrac R, Amblard J, Cotte L, Fernandez H. Prevent postnatal urinary incontinence by prenatal pelvic floor exercise? Rationale and protocol of the multicenter randomized study PreNatal pelvic floor prevention (3PN). J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2008;37(5):441–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dietz HP. Ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor. Part I: two-dimensional aspects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:80–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;2:420–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hinkle DE, Wiersma W, Jurs SG. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 5th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Creighton SM, Pearce JM, Stanton SL. Perineal video-ultrasonography in the assessment of vaginal prolapse: early observation. BJOG. 1992;99(4):310–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schaer GN, Koechli OR, Schuessler B, Haller U. Perineal ultrasound for evaluating the bladder neck in urinary stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:220–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salvatore S, Serati M, Uccella S, Koelbl H, Artibani W, Cardozo L, et al. Inter-observer reliability of three different methods of measuring urethrovesical mobility. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;9:1513–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Peschers UM, Fanger G, Schaer GN, Vodusek DB, DeLancey JO, Schuessler B. Bladder neck mobility in continent nulliparous women. BJOG. 2001;108(3):320–4.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reddy AP, DeLancey JO, Zwica LM, Ashton-Miller JA. On-screen vector-based ultrasound assessment of vesical neck movement. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Jul;185(1):65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dietz HP, Nazemian K, Shek K, Martin A. Can urodynamic stress incontinence be diagnosed by ultrasound? Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24:1399–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wlazlak E, Kluz T, Kociszewski J, Frachowicz K, Janowska M, Wlazlak W, et al. The analysis of repeatability and reproducibility of bladder neck mobility measurements obtained during pelvic floor sonography performed introitally with 2D transvaginal probe. Ginekol Pol. 2017;88(7):360–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pizzoferrato AC, Fauconnier A, Bader G, de Tayrac R, Fort J, Fritel X. S prenatal urethral descent a risk factor for urinary incontinence during pregnancy and the postpartum period? Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(7):1003–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dietz HP, Wilson PD. The influence of bladder volume on the position and mobility of the Urethrovesical junction. Int Urogynecol J. 1999;10:3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orno A, Dietz HP. Levator co-activation is a significant confounder of pelvic organ descent on Valsalva maneuver. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;30:346–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dietz HP, Steensma AB, Hastings R. Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor: the effect of parturition on paravaginal support structures. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;21(6):589–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cogan SL, Weber AM, Hammel JP. Is urethral mobility really being assessed by the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(3):473–6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Urogynecological Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research Unit EA7285, Risk and Safety in Clinical Medicine for Women and Perinatal HealthUniversité Versailles St-QuentinMontigny-le-BretonneuxFrance
  2. 2.Department of Gynaecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospital of CaenCaenFrance
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCHU Rennes HospitalRennesFrance
  4. 4.Department of Gynaecology and ObstetricsIntercommunal Hospital Center of Poissy-Saint-Germain-en-LayePoissyFrance
  5. 5.Poitiers University, INSERM CIC1402University Hospital of PoitiersPoitiersFrance

Personalised recommendations