Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

MRI biomarker of muscle composition is associated with severity of pelvic organ prolapse

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Techniques in Coloproctology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The pathophysiology of pelvic organ prolapse is largely unknown. We hypothesized that reduced muscle mass on magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) is associated with increased pelvic floor laxity. The aim of this study was to compare the psoas and puborectalis muscle mass composition and cross-sectional area among patients with or without pelvic laxity.

Methods

An observational retrospective study was conducted on women > age 18 years old who had undergone MRD for pelvic floor complaints from January 2020 to December 2020 at Stanford Pelvic Health Center. Pelvic floor laxity, pelvic organ descent, and rectal prolapse were characterized by standard measurements on MRD and compared to the psoas (L4 level) and puborectalis muscle index (cross-sectional area adjusted by height) and relative fat fraction, quantified by utilizing a 2-point Dixon technique. Regression analysis was used to quantify the association between muscle characteristics and pelvic organ measurements.

Results

The psoas fat fraction was significantly elevated in patients with abnormally increased resting and strain H and M lines (p < 0.05) and increased with rising grades of Oxford rectal prolapse (p = 0.0001), uterovaginal descent (p = 0.001) and bladder descent (p = 0.0005). In multivariate regression analysis, adjusted for age and body mass index, the psoas fat fraction (not muscle index) was an independent risk factor for abnormal strain H and M line; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 17.8 (2–155.4) and 18.5 (1.3–258.3) respectively, and rising Oxford grade of rectal prolapse 153.9 (4.4–5383) and bladder descent 12.4 (1.5–106). Puborectalis fat fraction was increased by rising grades of Oxford rectal prolapse (p = 0.0002).

Conclusions

Severity of pelvic organ prolapse appears to be associated with increasing psoas muscle fat fraction, a biomarker for reduced skeletal muscle mass. Future prospective research is needed to determine if sarcopenia may predict postsurgical outcomes after pelvic organ prolapse repair.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mattsson NK, Karjalainen PK, Tolppanen A-M et al (2020) Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and quality of life—a nationwide cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 222:588.e1-588.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.11.1285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dieter AA, Wilkins MF, Wu JM (2015) Epidemiological trends and future care needs for pelvic floor disorders. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 27:380–384. https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000200

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Nygaard I (2008) Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA 300:1311. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.11.1311

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Delancey JOL, Kane Low L, Miller JM et al (2008) Graphic integration of causal factors of pelvic floor disorders: an integrated life span model. Am J Obstet Gynecol 199:610.e1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Handa VL, Lockhart ME, Kenton KS et al (2009) Magnetic resonance assessment of pelvic anatomy and pelvic floor disorders after childbirth. Int Urogynecol J 20:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0736-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Silva RRL, Coutinho JFV, Vasconcelos CTM et al (2021) Prevalence of sarcopenia in older women with pelvic floor dysfunction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 263:159–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.06.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nygaard IE, Shaw JM (2016) Physical activity and the pelvic floor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 214:164–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.08.067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wiedmer P, Jung T, Castro JP et al (2020) Sarcopenia—molecular mechanisms and open questions. Ageing Res Rev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2020.101200

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Baeyens JP, Bauer JM et al (2010) Sarcopenia: European consensus on definition and diagnosis: report of the European working group on sarcopenia in older people. Age Ageing 39:412–423. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afq034

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Byun S-E, Kim S, Kim K-H, Ha Y-C (2019) Psoas cross-sectional area as a predictor of mortality and a diagnostic tool for sarcopenia in hip fracture patients. J Bone Miner Metab 37:871–879. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-019-00986-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Womer AL, Brady JT, Kalisz K et al (2018) Do psoas muscle area and volume correlate with postoperative complications in patients undergoing rectal cancer resection? Am J Surg 215:503–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2017.10.052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hanaoka M, Yasuno M, Ishiguro M et al (2017) Morphologic change of the psoas muscle as a surrogate marker of sarcopenia and predictor of complications after colorectal cancer surgery. Int J Colorectal Dis 32:847–856. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-017-2773-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Codari M, Zanardo M, di Sabato ME et al (2020) MRI-derived biomarkers related to sarcopenia: a systematic review. J Magn Reson Imaging 51:1117–1127. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26931

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Comiter CV, Vasavada SP, Barbaric ZL et al (1999) Grading pelvic prolapse and pelvic floor relaxation using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 54:454–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)00165-X

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Derstine BA, Holcombe SA, Ross BE et al (2018) Skeletal muscle cutoff values for sarcopenia diagnosis using T10 to L5 measurements in a healthy US population. Sci Rep 8:11369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29825-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Collinson R, Cunningham C, D’Costa H, Lindsey I (2009) Rectal intussusception and unexplained faecal incontinence: findings of a proctographic study. Colorectal Dis 11:77–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2008.01539.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Staller K, Song M, Grodstein F et al (2018) Physical activity, BMI, and risk of fecal incontinence in the nurses’ health study. Clin Transl Gastroenterol 9:e200. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41424-018-0068-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dalle S, Rossmeislova L, Koppo K (2017) The role of inflammation in age-related sarcopenia. Front Physiol 8:1045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2017.01045

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Becker L, Nguyen L, Gill J et al (2018) Age-dependent shift in macrophage polarisation causes inflammation-mediated degeneration of enteric nervous system. Gut 67:827–836. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312940

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Derstine BA, Holcombe SA, Goulson RL et al (2017) Quantifying sarcopenia reference values using lumbar and thoracic muscle areas in a healthy population. J Nutr Health Aging 21:180–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12603-017-0983-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Boutin RD, Yao L, Canter RJ, Lenchik L (2015) Sarcopenia: current concepts and imaging implications. Am J Roentgenol 205:W255–W266. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tseng LA, Delmonico MJ, Visser M et al (2014) Body composition explains sex differential in physical performance among older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 69:93–100. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glt027

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown AD, Li B, Gabriel S et al (2021) Association between sarcopenia and adverse events following transcatheter aortic valve implantation. CJC Open. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjco.2021.09.012

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Baracos VE (2017) Psoas as a sentinel muscle for sarcopenia: a flawed premise: editorial. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 8:527–528. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12221

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Burian E, Syväri J, Holzapfel C et al (2018) Gender-and age-related changes in trunk muscle composition using chemical shift encoding-based water−fat MRI. Nutrients. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10121972

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Ding J, Cao P, Chang H-C et al (2020) Deep learning-based thigh muscle segmentation for reproducible fat fraction quantification using fat-water decomposition MRI. Insights Imaging 11:128. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00946-8

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We appreciate Mrs. Nilima Amin-Reddy and Madison McCarthy for their assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

LN and VS designed the study, PL and VS analyzed the data, TL conducted the statistical analysis; BG and LB contributed to the conception and interpretation of data for the work; LN drafted the manuscript. All authors helped with revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. All authors have read and approved the final draft submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Neshatian.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neshatian, L., Lam, J.P., Gurland, B.H. et al. MRI biomarker of muscle composition is associated with severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 26, 725–733 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02651-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-022-02651-8

Keywords

Navigation