Pelvic Floor Ultrasound

  • Chad Baxter
  • Farzeen FirooziEmail author
Part of the Current Clinical Urology book series (CCU)


Pelvic ultrasound is increasingly used to evaluate pelvic floor disorders and has several advantages in contrast to other imaging modalities such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and cystourethrography. Ultrasound is relatively inexpensive, widely available, and offers real-time, dynamic imaging of pelvic anatomy without radiation. Most urologists are trained in transrectal ultrasonography. However, those skills are easily translated to translabial pelvic ultrasonography. This chapter focuses on 2D ultrasound imaging and technique as it is the most widely available and familiar to urologists. However, the expanding prevalence of 3D and 4D ultrasound reconstructions of pelvic anatomy will likely advance the understanding of pelvic floor pathology and our appreciation and use of pelvic ultrasound.


Bladder Neck Valsalva Maneuver Urethral Stricture Urethral Diverticulum Pelvic Anatomy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors wish to thank Dr. Shlomo Raz, MD who has provided many of the images from his personal collection.


  1. 1.
    Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Mueller T, et al. Dynamic transurethral sonography and 3D reconstruction of the rhabdosphincter and urethra. J Ultrasound Med. 2006;25:315–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yang JM, Huang WC. The significance of urethral hyperechogenicity in female lower urinary tract symptoms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24(1):67–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dietz HP, Eldridge A, Grace M, Clarke B. Test-retest reliability of the ultrasound assessment of bladder neck mobility. Int Urogynecol J. 2003;14 Suppl 1:S57–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dietz HP, Wilson PD. The influence of bladder volume on the position and mobility of the urethrovesical junction. Int Urogynecol J. 1999;10(1):3–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oerno A, Dietz HP. Levator co-activation is an important confounder of pelvic organ descent on Valsalva. In: ICS annual scientific meeting (abstract), Christchurch; 2006.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alper T, Cetinkaya M, Okutgen S, Kokcu A, Lu E. Evaluation of urethrovesical angle by ultrasound in women with and without urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2001;12(5):308–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delair SM, Kurzrock EA. Clinical utility of ureteral jets: disparate opinions. J Endourol. 2006;20(2):111–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuhn A, Genoud S, Robinson D, et al. Sonographic transvaginal bladder wall thickness: does the measurement discriminate between urodynamic diagnoses? Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30(3):325–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lekskulchai O, Dietz HP. Normal values for detrusor wall thickness in young Caucasian women. In: International continence society annual scientific meeting (abstract), Montreal; 2005.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blatt AH, Titus J, Chan L. Ultrasound measurement of bladder wall thickness in the assessment of voiding dysfunction. J Urol. 2008;179(6):2275–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gerrard ER, Lloyd LK, Kubricht WS, et al. Transvaginal ultrasound for the diagnosis of urethral diverticulum. J Urol. 2003;169(4):1395–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ockrim JL, Allen DJ, Shah PJ, et al. A tertiary experience of urethral diverticulectomy: diagnosis, imaging, and surgical outcomes. BJU Int. 2009;103(11): 1550–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tunn R, Petri E. Introital and transvaginal ultrasound as the main tool in the assessment of urogenital and pelvic floor dysfunction: an imaging panel and practical approach. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22(2):205–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Creigton SM, Pearce JM, Stanton SL. Perineal video-ultrasonography in the assessment of vaginal prolapse: early observations. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;99(4):310–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dietz HP, Haylen BT, Broome J. Ultrasound in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(5):511–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bump RC, Mattiason A, Bo K, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dietz HP. What’s “normal” pelvic organ descent, and what’s prolapse? In: ICS annual scientific meeting, Christchurch; 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dietz HP, Steensma AB. Posterior compartment prolapse on two-dimensional and three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound: the distinction between true rectocele, perineal hypermobility and enterocele. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:73–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Halsaka M, Otcenasek M, Martam A, et al. Pelvic anatomy changes after TVT procedure assessed by MRI. Int Urogynecol J. 1999;10 Suppl 1:S87–8.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaum HJ, Wolff F. TVT: on midurethral tape positioning and its influence on continence. Int Urogynecol J. 2002;13(2):110–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dietz HP, Wilson PD. The “iris effect”; how two-dimensional and three-dimensional ultrasound can help us understand anti-incontinence procedures. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23(3):267–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ng CC, Lee LC, Han WH. Use of three-dimensional ultrasound to assess the clinical importance of midurethral placement of the tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) for the treatment of incontinence. Int Urogynecol J. 2005;16(3):220–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shek K, Dietz HP, Rane A. Transobturator mesh anchoring for the repair of large or recurrent cystocele. In: ICS annual scientific meeting, Christchurch; 2006.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Achtari OA, O’Reilly B, Schierlitz L, et al. Mesh erosion following vaginal repair: is I avoidable? Int Urogynecol J. 2003;14 Suppl 1:S65.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Firoozi F, Goldman HB. Transvaginal excision of mesh erosion involving the bladder after mesh placement using a prolapse kit: a novel technique. Urology. 2010;75(1):203–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ridgeway B, Walters M, Paraisa MF, et al. Early experience with mesh excision for adverse outcomes after transvaginal mesh placement using prolapse kits. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199:703–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyDavid Geffen School of Medicine at UCLASanta MonicaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Urology, Hofstra Northshore–LIJ School of MedicineThe Arthur Smith Institute for Urology, Center of Pelvic Health and Reconstructive SurgeryLake SuccessUSA

Personalised recommendations