» Articles » PMID: 29952373

Perineal Ultrasound Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Detection for Evaluation of Pelvic Diaphragm in Resting State

Overview
Journal Med Sci Monit
Date 2018 Jun 29
PMID 29952373
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare the consistency differences between ultrasound and MRI detection methods and the reliability between 2 independent observers. MATERIAL AND METHODS Under 2 kinds of states - the resting state and muscle contractions state - intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated and the consistency of 2 diagnostic methods was evaluated by 2 independent observers. We also assessed the interscorer reliability of the 2 observers. RESULTS In terms of the evaluation of biological parameters of the pelvic diaphragm, the consistency of the 2 diagnostic methods was moderate. The ICC of pelvic diaphragm area was 0.55 (95% CI 0.35-0.71), anteroposterior diameter was 0.48 (95% CI 0.28-0.64), and transverse diameter was 0.43 (95% CI 0.25-0.63). The ultrasound detection values of the perineal ultrasound were significantly smaller than those of the MRI. In addition, these differences were increased with the rise of the pelvic diaphragm area. CONCLUSIONS By evaluating the pelvic diaphragm in patients with pelvic organ prolapse in the resting state, it was preliminarily confirmed that the consistency of ultrasound and MRI was only moderate. The comparison of these 2 diagnostic methods under the dynamic muscle contraction state needs to be further explored.

Citing Articles

Six-Week Pelvic Floor Muscle Activity (sEMG) Training in Pregnant Women as Prevention of Stress Urinary Incontinence.

Dornowski M, Sawicki P, Wilczynska D, Vereshchaka I, Piernicka M, Bludnicka M Med Sci Monit. 2018; 24:5653-5659.

PMID: 30106065 PMC: 6104548. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.911707.

References
1.
Wilkins M, Wu J . Lifetime risk of surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Minerva Ginecol. 2016; 69(2):171-177. DOI: 10.23736/S0026-4784.16.04011-9. View

2.
Wu J, Matthews C, Conover M, Pate V, Funk M . Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123(6):1201-1206. PMC: 4174312. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000286. View

3.
Murad-Regadas S, Karbage S, Bezerra L, Regadas F, da Silva Vilarinho A, Borges L . Dynamic translabial ultrasound versus echodefecography combined with the endovaginal approach to assess pelvic floor dysfunctions: How effective are these techniques?. Tech Coloproctol. 2017; 21(7):555-565. DOI: 10.1007/s10151-017-1658-0. View

4.
Nardos R, Thurmond A, Holland A, Gregory W . Pelvic floor levator hiatus measurements: MRI versus ultrasound. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014; 20(4):216-21. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000079. View

5.
Lammers K, Kluivers K, Vierhout M, Prokop M, Futterer J . Inter- and intraobserver reliability for diagnosing levator ani changes on magnetic resonance imaging. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 42(3):347-52. DOI: 10.1002/uog.12462. View