Comparison of Bony Dimensions at the Level of the Pelvic Floor in Women with and Without Pelvic Organ Prolapse

Overview

Journal Am J Obstet Gynecol

Publisher Elsevier

Specialty Gynecology & Obstetrics

Date 2009 Mar 4

PMID 19254580

Citations 11

Authors

Tamara A Stein

Gurpreet Kaur

Aimee Summers

Kindra A Larson

John O L DeLancey

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: We sought to compare bony pelvis dimensions at the level of pelvic support in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Study Design: Pelvic floor dimensions of 42 white women with POP > 1 cm beyond the hymen were compared with 42 age- and parity-matched women with normal support. Bony landmarks relevant to connective tissue and levator attachments were identified on magnetic resonance imaging. Dimensions were independently measured by 2 examiners and averaged for each subject.

Results: Measurements (in centimeters) for patients and control subjects were as follows: interspinous diameter, 11.2 +/- 0.8 versus 11.1 +/- 0.7, P = .19; anterior-posterior outlet diameter, 11.7 +/- 0.7 versus 11.7 +/- 0.8, P = .71; pubic symphysis to ischial spine left, 9.5 +/- 0.5 versus 9.5 +/- 0.4, P = .91; pubic symphysis to ischial spine right, 9.5 +/- 0.4 versus 9.5 +/- 0.5, P = .81; sacrococcygeal junction to ischial spine left, 7.0 +/- 0.6 versus 7.0 +/- 0.5, P = .54; and sacrococcygeal junction to ischial spine right, 7.0 +/- 0.6 versus 6.9 +/- 0.4, P = .32.

Conclusion: Bony pelvis dimensions are similar at the level of the muscular pelvic floor in white women with and without POP.

Citing Articles

Risk Factors of Pelvic Floor Disorders Among Women in Rural Nepal: A Case-Control Study.

Chen C, Kao M, Lulseged B, Khatry S, Singh M, LeClerq S Int Urogynecol J. 2024; 35(8):1643-1652.

PMID: 38958728 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-05843-y.

International Urogynecology consultation chapter 2 committee 3: the clinical evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse including investigations into associated morbidity/pelvic floor dysfunction.

Barbier H, Carberry C, Karjalainen P, Mahoney C, Galan V, Rosamilia A Int Urogynecol J. 2023; 34(11):2657-2688.

PMID: 37737436 PMC: 10682140. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-023-05629-8.

The establishment of a 3D anatomical coordinate system for defining vaginal axis and spatial position.

Sinex D, Bowen S, Kashkoush A, Rosemond A, Carter D, Menon P Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2021; 208:106175.

PMID: 34082373 PMC: 9277768. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106175.

The obstetrical dilemma hypothesis: there's life in the old dog yet.

Haeusler M, Grunstra N, Martin R, Krenn V, Fornai C, Webb N Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021; 96(5):2031-2057.

PMID: 34013651 PMC: 8518115. DOI: 10.1111/brv.12744.

Biomechanical trade-offs in the pelvic floor constrain the evolution of the human birth canal.

Stansfield E, Kumar K, Mitteroecker P, Grunstra N Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021; 118(16).

PMID: 33853947 PMC: 8072325. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2022159118.

References

Boyles S, Weber A, Meyn L . Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 188(1):108-15. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2003.101. View

Frudinger A, Halligan S, Spencer J, Bartram C, Kamm M, Winter R . Influence of the subpubic arch angle on anal sphincter trauma and anal incontinence following childbirth. BJOG. 2002; 109(11):1207-12. DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-0528.2002.01466.x. View

Baragi R, DeLancey J, Caspari R, Howard D, Ashton-Miller J . Differences in pelvic floor area between African American and European American women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187(1):111-5. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2002.125703. View

Jelovsek J, Maher C, Barber M . Pelvic organ prolapse. Lancet. 2007; 369(9566):1027-38. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60462-0. View

Hoyte L, Thomas J, Foster R, Shott S, Jakab M, Weidner A . Racial differences in pelvic morphology among asymptomatic nulliparous women as seen on three-dimensional magnetic resonance images. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193(6):2035-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.06.060. View