Skip to main content

The urogynecological side of pelvic floor MRI: the clinician’s needs and the radiologist’s role

Abdominal Imaging volume 38, pages 912–929 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

In pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD), magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvic floor supporting system from a functional point of view allows radiologists to recognize and classify the types of defects in each supporting structure (namely, the urethral supporting system, the vaginal supporting system, and the anal sphincter complex). Combined analysis of both the static and dynamic images of patients reporting stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse has revealed a close relationship between certain anatomical defects in the pelvic organ support system and specific PFD. Because of the consistency and reproducibility of this relationship, radiologists can accurately identify and report the underlying structural defects, allowing clinicians to individually tailor surgical techniques for each patient. This is important because even those patients presenting with the same clinical symptoms may have different underlying structural derangement or abnormalities that may warrant a different treatment plan or approach. In view of the reported high rate of dysfunction recurrence after surgical treatment and clinicians’ desire for a test that can pinpoint each patient’s structural and anatomical defects, this approach provides the necessary scientific evidence on which best clinical practice can be based, and the data-reporting system used for analysis provides a tool for accurately planning reconstructive surgery, reducing the risk of surgical failure, dysfunction recurrence, and reoperation. With the improved radiological evidence made possible by combined image analysis, clinicians can now have the documentation that they need to plan more effective procedures and thus produce better outcomes. This review focuses on the MRI anatomy of the pelvic floor from a functional point of view and from the urogynecological side of floor dysfunction (UI and POP), adopting a problem-oriented approach. The first section of this article provides the basic essential anatomical information about the pelvic floor and briefly reviews the pathophysiology and clinical features of SUI and POP. The second portion details the vital role of the radiologist in obtaining accurate images for the clinician to use in planning reconstructive surgery. In addition, it includes case examples, illustrating how to report MRI findings systematically and comprehensively on both the static and dynamic images, using a recently developed integrated MRI analytical approach from a purely functional point of view that may enhance radiologists’ interaction with clinicians and bridges the gap between radiology and surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

References

  1. Maglinte DDT, Kelvin PM, Fitzgerald K, et al. (1999) Association of compartments defects in pelvic floor dysfunction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:439–444

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bump RC, Norton PA (1998) Epidemiology and natural history of pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 25:723–746

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. DeLancey JO (2005) The hidden epidemic of pelvic floor dysfunction: achievable goals for improved prevention and treatment. Am J Obestet Gynecol 192:1488–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, et al. (1997) Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 89:501–506

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Black N, Downs S (1996) The effectiveness of surgery for stress incontinence in women: a systematic review. Br J Urol 78:497–510

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. El Sayed RF, Mashed SE, Farag A, et al. (2008) Pelvic floor dysfunction: assessment with combined analysis of static and dynamic MR imaging findings. Radiology 248:518–530

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. El Sayed RF, Fielding JR, El Mashed S, et al. (2005) Preoperative and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging of female pelvic floor dysfunction: correlation with clinical findings. J Women’s Imaging 7:163–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaufman HS, Buller JL, Thompson JR, et al. (2001) Dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and cystocolpoproctography alter surgical management of pelvic floor disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1575–1584

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Altringer WE, Saclarides TJ, Dominguez JM, et al. (1995) Four-contrast defecography: pelvic “floor-oscopy”. Dis Colon Rectum 38:695–699

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Strohbehn K (1998) Normal pelvic floor anatomy. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 25:683–705

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. DeLancey JO (1994) The anatomy of pelvic floor. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 6:313–316

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, et al. (2002) The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the international continence society. Neurourol Urodyn 21:167–178

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fultz NH, Burgio K, Diokno AC, et al. (2003) Burden of stress urinary incontinence for community-dwelling women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 189:1275–1282

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Minassian VA, Drutz HP, Al-Badr A (2003) Urinary incontinence as a worldwide problem. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 82:327–338

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hunskaar S, Burgio K, Diokno AC, et al. (2000) Epidemiology and natural history of urinary incontinence. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 11:301–319

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hannestad YS, Rortveit G, Sandvik H, Hunskaar S (2000) A community-based epidemiological survey of female urinary incontinence: the Norwegian EPINCONT study. Epidemiology of Incontinence in the County of Nord-Trøndelag. J Clin Epidemiol 53:1150–1157

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jeffcoate TN, Roberts H (1952) Observation on stress incontinence of urine. Am J Obstet Gynecol 64:721–738

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Enhorning G (1961) Simultaneous recording of intravesical and intra-urethral pressure: a study on urethral closure in normal and stress incontinent women. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 276:1–69

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Mostwin JL, Yang A, Sanders R, Genadry R (1995) Radiography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging for stress urinary incontinence: contributions, uses, and limitations. Urol Clin North Am 22:539–549

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Kim JK, Kim YJ, Choo MS, Cho KS (2003) The urethra and its supporting structures in women with stress urinary incontinence: MR imaging using an endovaginal coil. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1037–1044

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. DeLancey JO (1994) Structural support of the urethra as it relates to stress urinary incontinence: the hammock hypothesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 170:1713–1720

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Koelbl H, Mowstin J, Boiteux JP, et al. (2002) Pathophysiology. In: Abrams P, Cardozo L, Koury S, Wein A (eds) Incontinence, 2nd edn. Plymouth: Health Publications Ltd, pp 165–201

    Google Scholar 

  23. McCarthy TA (1991) Medical history and physical examination. In: Ostergard DR, Bent AE (eds) Urogynecology and urodynamics: theory and practice, 3rd edn. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, pp 99–101

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wall LL, Norton PA, DeLancey JOL (1993) Practical urogynecology. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 83–124

    Google Scholar 

  25. Strohbehn K (2003) Urodynamics. In: Bartram CI, DeLancey JO, Halligan S, et al. (eds) Imaging pelvic floor disorders. New York: Springer, pp 89–97

    Google Scholar 

  26. Coates K (1998) Physiologic evaluation of the pelvic floor. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 25:805–824

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cardozo L (2004) New developments in the management of stress urinary incontinence. BJU Int 94(suppl 1):1–3

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Woodfield CA, Krishnamoorthy S, Hampton BS, Brody JM (2010) Imaging pelvic floor disorders: trend toward comprehensive MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:1640–1649

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yang A, Mostwin JL, Rosenshein NB, Zerhouni EA (1991) Pelvic floor descent in women: dynamic evaluation with fast MR imaging and cinematic display. Radiology 179:25–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Mengert WF (1936) Mechanics of uterine support and position. Am J Obstet Gynecol 31:775–782

    Google Scholar 

  31. DeLancey JO (1993) Anatomy and biomechanics of genital prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol 36:897–909

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. DeLancey JO (2003) Functional anatomy of the pelvic floor. In: Bartram CI, DeLancey JO, Halligan S, et al. (eds) Imaging pelvic floor disorders. New York: Springer, pp 27–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, et al. (1996) The standardization of terminology female pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Theofrastous JP, Swift SE (1998) The clinical evaluation of pelvic floor dysfunction. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 25:783–804

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Pannu KH, Kaufman SH, Geoffrey WC, et al. (2000) Dynamic MR imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: spectrum of abnormalities. Radiographics 20:1567–1582

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Fielding JR (2002) Practical MR imaging of female pelvic floor weakness. Radiographics 22:295–304

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kelvin FM, Maglinte DDT, Hale DS, Benson JT (2000) Female pelvic organ prolapse: a comparison of triphasic dynamic MR imaging and triphasic fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:81–88

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Comiter CV, Vasavada SF, Barbaric ZL, et al. (1999) Grading pelvic prolapse and pelvic floor relaxation using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 3:454–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Colaiacomo MD, Masselli G, Polettini E, et al. (2009) Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor: a pictorial review. Radiographics 35:1–42

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nyagaard IK, Kreder KJ (1994) Complication of incontinence surgery. Int Urogynecol J 5:353–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Singh K, Reid WM, Berger LA (2001) Assessment and grading of pelvic organ prolapse by use of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 185:71–77

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wall LL (1996) Incontinence, prolapse, and disorders of the pelvic floor. In: Berek JF, Adashi EY, Hillard PA (eds) Novek gynecology, 12th edn. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, pp 619–676

    Google Scholar 

  43. Beco J, Mouchel J (2003) Perineology: a new area. Urogynaecol Int J 17:79–86

    Google Scholar 

  44. El Sayed RF (2009) Female pelvic floor dysfunction. In: Morcos SK, Thomsen HS (eds) Imaging in genitourinary medicine: a problem-oriented approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp 399–413

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. El Sayed RF, Morsy MM, El Mashed SM, Abdul-Azim MS (2007) Anatomy of the urethral supporting ligaments defined by dissection, histology, and MRI of female cadavers and MRI of healthy nulliparous women. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:1145–1157

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Stoker J, Rociu E, Bosch JL, et al. (2003) High-resolution endovaginal MR imaging in stress urinary incontinence. Eur Radiol 13:2031–2037

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Huddleston HT, Dunnihoo DR, Huddleston PM, Meyers PC (1995) Magnetic resonance imaging of defects in DeLancey’s vaginal support levels I, II, and III. Am J Obstet Gynecol 172:1778–1784

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. DeLancey JO (2002) Fascial and muscular abnormalities in women with urethral hypermobility and anterior vaginal wall prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 187:93–98

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A, et al. (1997) Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic floor descent. Eur Radiol 7:1309–1317

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Etlik Ö, Arslan H, Odabaşi H, et al. (2005) The role of the MR-fluoroscopy in the diagnosis and staging of the pelvic organ prolapse. Eur J Radiol 53:136–141

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Cortes E, Reid WMN, Singh K, Berger L (2004) Clinical examination and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 103:41–46

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Kelvin FM, Pannu HK (2003) Dynamic cystoproctography: fluoroscopic and MR techniques for evaluating pelvic organ prolapse. In: Bartram CI, DeLancey JO, Halligan S, et al. (eds) Imaging pelvic floor disorders. New York: Springer, pp 51–68

    Google Scholar 

  53. Goh V, Halligan S, Kaplan G, et al. (2000) Dynamic MRI of the pelvic floor in asymptomatic subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:661–666

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Singh K, Reid WM, Berger LA (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging of normal levator ani anatomy and function. Obstet Gynecol 99:433–438

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nygaard I, Bradely C, Brandt D (2004) Pelvic organ prolapsed in older women: prevalence and risk factors. Obstet Gynecol 104:489–497

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Luber KM, Boero S, Choe JY (2001) The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am J Obstet Gynecol 184:1496–1501

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. DeLancey JO (1996) Stress urinary incontinence: where are we now, where should we go? Am J Obestet Gynecol 175:311–319

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Klutke CG, Siegel CL (1995) Functional female pelvic anatomy. Urol Clin N Am 22:487–498

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Petros PEP (2007) Overview. In: Petros PEP (ed) The female pelvic floor. Function, dysfunction and management according to the integral theory, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer, pp 3–4

  60. Hale DS, Kelvin FM, Strohbehn K (2003) Urogenital dysfunction. In: Bartram CI, DeLancey JO, Halligan S, et al. (eds) Imaging pelvic floor dysfunction. New York: Springer, p 109

    Google Scholar 

  61. Petros PEP (2007) Reconstructive pelvic floor surgery according to the integral theory. In: Petros PEP (ed) The female pelvic floor: function, dysfunction and management according to the integral theory, 2nd edn. Berlin: Springer, pp 122–123

Download references

Acknowledgments

Medical editor Katharine O’Moore-Klopf, ELS (East Setauket, NY, USA) provided professional English-language editing of this article.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Kaser El Aini, Naser City, Cairo, 11511, Egypt

    Rania Farouk El Sayed

Authors
  1. Rania Farouk El Sayed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rania Farouk El Sayed.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Farouk El Sayed, R. The urogynecological side of pelvic floor MRI: the clinician’s needs and the radiologist’s role. Abdom Imaging 38, 912–929 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9905-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9905-3

Keywords

  • Pelvic floor MRI
  • Pelvic floor dysfunction
  • Pelvic organ prolapse
  • Individualized treatment
  • Image correlation