Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interobserver and interdisciplinary reproducibility of 3D endovaginal ultrasound assessment of pelvic floor anatomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Urogynecology Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The study aims were to evaluate (1) the interobserver and (2) the interdisciplinary repeatability of levator hiatus, urethral thickness, and anorectal angle measurements using three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound (3D-EVUS).

Methods

Twenty-seven nulliparous asymptomatic females were imaged with 3D-EVUS. Analyses were conducted off-line from stored 3D volumes by six readers (two radiologists, two urogynecologists, and two colorectal surgeons) using a standardized technique. Reproducibility was determined using the interclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

Results

The overall interobserver repeatability for levator hiatus dimensions was good to excellent (ICC, 0.655–0.889), for urethral thickness was good (ICC, 0.624), and for anorectal angle was moderate (ICC, 0472). The interdisciplinary repeatability for levator hiatus indices was good to excellent (ICC, 0.639–0.915), for urethral thickness was moderate to good (ICC, 0.565–0.671), and for anorectal angle was fair to moderate (ICC, 0.204–0.434).

Conclusions

3D-EVUS yields reproducible measurements of levator hiatus dimensions and urethral thickness in asymptomatic nulliparous women.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Groenendijk AG, Birnie E, Boeckxstaens GE, Roovens JP, Bonsel GJ (2009) Anorectal function testing and anal endosonography in the diagnostic work-up of patients with primary pelvic organ prolapse. Gynecol Obstet Investig 67:187–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Groenendijk AG, Birnie E, de Blok S, Adriaanse AH, Ankum WM, Roovens JP et al (2009) Clinical-decision taking in primary pelvic organ prolapse; the effects of diagnostic tests on treatment selection in comparison with a consensus meeting. Int Urogynecol J 20:711–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kaufman HS, Buller JL, Thompson JR, Pannu HK, DeMeester SL, Genadry RR et al (2001) Dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and cystocolpodefecography alter surgical management of pelvic floor disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1575–1584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Tunn R, Schaer G, Peschers U (2005) Update recommendations on ultrasonography in urogynecology. Int Urogynecol J 16:236–241

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dietz HP, Steensma AB (2005) Posterior compartment prolapse on two-dimensional and three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound: the distinction between true rectocele, perineal hypermobility and enterocele. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 26:73–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Stankiewicz A, Wozniak MM, Bogusiewicz M, Rechberger T (2009) High-resolution three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasonography in the assessment of pelvic floor anatomy: a preliminary study. Int Urogynecol J 20:1213–1222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Uebersax JS, Wyman JF, Shumaker SA, Mc-Clish DK, Fanti JA (1995) Short forms to assess life quality and symptom distress for urinary incontinence in women: the incontinence impact questionnaire and the urogenital distress inventory. Continence program for women research group. Neurourol Urodyn 14:131–139

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rockwood TH, Church JM, Fleshman JW, Kane RL, Mavrantonis C, Thorson AG et al (1999) Patient and surgeon ranking of the severity index. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1525–1532

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Altomare DF, Spazzafumo L, Rinaldi M, Dodi G, Ghiselli R, Piloni V (2008) Set-up and statistical validation of a new scoring system for obstructed defecation syndrome. Colorectal Dis 10:84–88

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mouritsen L, Larsen JP (2003) Symptoms, bother and POPQ in women referred with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunction 14:122–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Laycock J (1994) Clinical evaluation of the pelvic floor. In: Schuessler B (ed) Pelvic floor re-education: principles and practice. Springer, London, pp 42–48

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bump R, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker L, DeLancey J, Klarskov P et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dietz HP, Shek C, Clarke B (2005) Biometry of the pubovisceral muscle and levator hiatus by three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:580–585

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Majida M, Braekken IH, Umek W, Bo K, Saltyte Benths J, Ellstrom Engh M (2009) Interobserver repeteability of three- and four-dimensional transperineal ultrasound assessment of pelvic floor muscle anatomy and function. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 33:567–573

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Landis JR, Koch GG (1997) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:20–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Altman DG (1999) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hoyte L, Brubaker L, Fielding JR, Lockhart ME, Heilbrun ME, Salomon CG et al (2009) Measurements from image-based three dimensional pelvic floor reconstruction: a study of inter- and intraobserver reliability. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:344–350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Weinstein MM, Jung SA, Pretorious DH, Nager CW, den Boer DJ, Mittal RK (2007) The reliability of puborectalis muscle measurements with 3-dimensional ultrasound imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197:68e1–68e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

No funding was accepted or involved in this project. Author GAS has received speaker’s fees from BK Medical. He has also received equipment loans from BK Medical and General Electric (GE) for research purposes. Author APW has received speaker’s fees from BK Medical. He has also received equipment loans from BK Medical and GE for research purposes. Author SAS has received research grants from AMS, BK Medical, Medtronics, and Uroplasty Inc. He is an anatomy consultant for AMS. Author ERM has received speaker’s fees from BK Medical, Allergan, and Pfizer. She has also received equipment loans from BK Medical for research purposes.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pelvic Floor Unit, I° Department of Surgery, Regional Hospital, 31100, Treviso, Italy

    Giulio Aniello Santoro

  2. Department of Pediatric Radiology, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

    Andrzej Paweł Wieczorek & Aleksandra Stankiewicz

  3. Section of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Division of Obstetric and Gynecology, Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, OK, USA

    S. Abbas Shobeiri

  4. Departments of Urology and Obstetrics/Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Loyola University Stritch School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Elizabeth R. Mueller

  5. Department of General and Transplant Surgery and Clinical Nutrition, Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland

    Jacek Pilat

  6. Epidemiologic Unit, Regional Hospital, Treviso, Italy

    Giuseppe Battistella

Authors
  1. Giulio Aniello Santoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrzej Paweł Wieczorek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Abbas Shobeiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth R. Mueller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jacek Pilat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Aleksandra Stankiewicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Giuseppe Battistella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulio Aniello Santoro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Santoro, G.A., Wieczorek, A.P., Shobeiri, S.A. et al. Interobserver and interdisciplinary reproducibility of 3D endovaginal ultrasound assessment of pelvic floor anatomy. Int Urogynecol J 22, 53–59 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1233-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1233-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation