Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 284, Issue 2, pp 365–370 | Cite as

MRI pelvic landmark angles in the assessment of apical pelvic organ prolapse

  • Shimon GinathEmail author
  • Alan Garely
  • Jonathan S. Luchs
  • Azin Shahryarinejad
  • Cedric Olivera
  • Sue Zhou
  • Charles Ascher-Walsh
  • Alexander Condrea
  • Michael Brodman
  • Michael Vardy
General Gynecology

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the study was to evaluate the utility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) pelvic landmark angles and lines in the assessment of apical vault prolapse.

Methods

Seventeen women were evaluated as part of a prospective surgical trial. Baseline data are presented as a pilot study of the utility of MRI in addition to this evaluation of 6 nulliparous volunteers without prolapse and 11 parous women with symptomatic ≥ stage II uterine prolapse. Each patient underwent assessment for pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ) and pelvic MRI. Pelvic landmark angles and lines were measured. Mann–Whitney Rank sum test and Spearman’s Rank order correlation test were used to assess agreement.

Results

Women with prolapse had a significantly larger h angle, g angle, and e angle at rest than those without prolapse. Correlation between apical vault descent was measured clinically by POPQ point C with MRI measurements: h angle (r = 0.61, p = 0.01), g angle (r = 0.64, p = 0.005), and e angle (r = 0.62, p = 0.007).

Conclusion

MRI measurements of pelvic landmark angles reliably differentiate between women with and without uterine prolapse and correlate best with POPQ point C.

Keywords

h angle MRI Pelvic floor landmarks Uterine prolapse 

Notes

Conflict of interest

None

References

  1. 1.
    Novara G, Artibani W (2005) Surgery for pelvic organ prolapse: current status and future perspectives. Curr Opin Urol 15:256–262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beck RP, McCormick S, Nordstrom L (1991) A 25-year experience with 519 anterior colporrhaphy procedures. Obstet Gynecol 78:1011–1018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, Shull BL, Smith AR (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rush CB, Entman SS (1995) Pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Med Clin North Am 79:1473–1479PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pannu HK, Kaufman HS, Cundiff GW, Genadry R, Bluemke DA, Fishman EK (2000) Dynamic MR imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: spectrum of abnormalities. Radiographics 20:1567–1582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dietz HP (2010) Pelvic floor ultrasound: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 202:321–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Benson JT (1994) Evacuation proctography (defecography): an aid to the investigation of pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol 83:307–314PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Macura KJ (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor defects in women. Top Magn Reson Imaging 17:417–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Woodfield CA, Krishnamoorthy S, Hampton BS, Brody JM (2010) Imaging pelvic floor disorders: trend toward comprehensive MRI. Am J Roentgenol 194:1640–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodrich MA, Webb MJ, King BF, Bampton AE, Campeau NG, Riederer SJ (1993) Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor relaxation: dynamic analysis and evaluation of patients before and after surgical repair. Obstet Gynecol 82:883–891PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yang A, Mostwin JL, Rosenshein NB, Zerhouni EA (1991) Pelvic floor descent in women: dynamic evaluation with fast MR imaging and cinematic display. Radiology 179:25–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ansquer Y, Fernandez P, Chapron C, Frey C, Bennis M, Roy C, Salomon L, Mandelbrot L, Carbonne B (2006) Static and dynamic MRI features of the levator ani and correlation with severity of genital prolapse. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 85:1468–1475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Comiter CV, Vasavada SP, Barbaric ZL, Gousse AE, Raz S (1999) Grading pelvic prolapse and pelvic floor relaxation using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 54:454–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hodroff MA, Stolpen AH, Denson MA, Bolinger L, Kreder KJ (2002) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: the relationship with the pelvic organ prolapse quantification staging system. J Urol 167:1353–1355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A, Kohz P, Reiser M (1997) Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic-floor descent. Eur Radiol 7:1309–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Broekhuis SR, Kluivers KB, Hendriks JC, Vierhout ME, Barentsz JO, Futterer JJ (2009) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging: reliability of anatomical landmarks and reference lines used to assess pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:141–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Healy JC, Halligan S, Reznek RH, Watson S, Phillips RK, Armstrong P (1997) Patterns of prolapse in women with symptoms of pelvic floor weakness: assessment with MR imaging. Radiology 203:77–81PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sze EH, Meranus J, Kohli N, Miklos JR, Karram MM (2001) Vaginal configuration on MRI after abdominal sacrocolpopexy and sacrospinous ligament suspension. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:375–379 (discussion 379–380)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hsu Y, Summers A, Hussain HK, Guire KE, Delancey JO (2006) Levator plate angle in women with pelvic organ prolapse compared to women with normal support using dynamic MR imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1427–1433PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fielding JR (2003) MR imaging of pelvic floor relaxation. Radiol Clin North Am 41:747–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hendrix SL, Clark A, Nygaard I, Aragaki A, Barnabei V, McTiernan A (2002) Pelvic organ prolapse in the Women’s Health Initiative: gravity and gravidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186:1160–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    DeLancey JO (1992) Anatomic aspects of vaginal eversion after hysterectomy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166:1717–1724 (discussion 1724–1718)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Broekhuis SR, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Vierhout ME, Kluivers KB (2009) A systematic review of clinical studies on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: the use of reference lines and anatomical landmarks. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 20:721–729PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shimon Ginath
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  • Alan Garely
    • 2
  • Jonathan S. Luchs
    • 5
  • Azin Shahryarinejad
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Cedric Olivera
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Sue Zhou
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Charles Ascher-Walsh
    • 1
  • Alexander Condrea
    • 4
  • Michael Brodman
    • 1
  • Michael Vardy
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive ScienceMount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyWinthrop University HospitalMineolaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyEnglewood Hospital and Medical CenterEnglewoodUSA
  4. 4.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyE. Wolfson Medical Center, Holon and Sackler School of MedicineTel-AvivIsrael
  5. 5.Department of RadiologyWinthrop University HospitalMineolaUSA

Personalised recommendations