POP-Q Versus Upright MRI Distance Measurements: A Prospective Study in Patients with POP

Overview

Journal Int Urogynecol J

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Urology

Date 2024 May 14

PMID 38743071

Authors

Annemarie van der Steen

Kim Y Jochem

Esther C J Consten

Frank F J Simonis

Anique T M Grob

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction And Hypothesis: The gold standard for quantifying pelvic organ prolapse is the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system; however, upright magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a promising new method. The objective of this study was to determine the correlation between POP-Q and MRI measurements of the bladder and cervix.

Methods: This prospective study included patients with prolapse in whom POP-Q points Aa or Ba and C were measured as standard care. MRI scans were performed in an upright position, and the distances of the lowest points of the bladder and cervix to the Pelvic Inclination Correction System (PICS) were calculated. Correlations between POP-Q and MRI-PICS measurements were determined using the Pearson correlation coefficient for normally distributed data and the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient for non-normally distributed data.

Results: A total of 63 patients were suitable for analysis. There was a moderate positive correlation between the POP-Q and MRI-PICS measurements for bladder (r(61) = 0.480, r < 0.001) and uterus (r(61) = 0.527, p < 0.001). Measurement differences between POP-Q and MRI-PICS of the bladder and uterus vary from -3.2 cm to 7.1 cm, and from -2.1 cm to 8.5 cm respectively. In 71.4% of patients more descent was seen on upright MRI than with POP-Q measurement for both bladder and uterus. For patients with similar POP-Q measurements, a high variation in MRI measurements of the bladder and uterus was found.

Conclusion: Despite a moderate positive correlation, upright MRI shows a larger POP extent in 71.4% of the patients than POP-Q. A high variation in MRI measurements for patients with the same POP-Q measurement was seen.

Citing Articles

Assessment of Different Pubococcygeal Lines for the Quantitative Diagnosis of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Using Magnetic Resonance Defecography.

Li M, Wang S, Liu T, Liu X Int Urogynecol J. 2025; .

PMID: 39820366 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-06021-w.

The Effect of Anterior Colporrhaphy: A Prospective Study Comparing POP-Q and Upright MRI.

Eijsink J, Simmering J, Perik M, van der Steen A, Grob A Int Urogynecol J. 2024; 36(2):403-412.

PMID: 39704795 DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-06006-9.

References

Grob A, Olde Heuvel J, Futterer J, Massop D, Veenstra van Nieuwenhoven A, Simonis F . Underestimation of pelvic organ prolapse in the supine straining position, based on magnetic resonance imaging findings. Int Urogynecol J. 2019; 30(11):1939-1944. PMC: 6834735. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-03862-0. View

Pham T, Burgart A, Kenton K, Mueller E, Brubaker L . Current Use of Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification by AUGS and ICS Members. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012; 17(2):67-9. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0b013e318207c904. View

Reiner C, Williamson T, Winklehner T, Lisse S, Fink D, DeLancey J . The 3D Pelvic Inclination Correction System (PICS): A universally applicable coordinate system for isovolumetric imaging measurements, tested in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2017; 59:28-37. PMC: 5526449. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2017.05.005. View

Chaudhuri S, Vaitheeswari J . Correlation of preoperative and intraoperative assessment of pelvic organ prolapse by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2021; 157(2):466-470. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13894. View

Morsinkhof L, Schulten M, DeLancey J, Simonis F, Grob A . Pelvic inclination correction system for magnetic resonance imaging analysis of pelvic organ prolapse in upright position. Int Urogynecol J. 2022; 33(10):2801-2807. PMC: 9477951. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05289-0. View

Bump R, Mattiasson A, Bo K, Brubaker L, DeLancey J, Klarskov P . The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175(1):10-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70243-0. View

Hall A, Theofrastous J, Cundiff G, Harris R, HAMILTON L, Swift S . Interobserver and intraobserver reliability of the proposed International Continence Society, Society of Gynecologic Surgeons, and American Urogynecologic Society pelvic organ prolapse classification system. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175(6):1467-70; discussion 1470-1. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(96)70091-1. View

Broekhuis S, Kluivers K, Hendriks J, Futterer J, Barentsz J, Vierhout M . POP-Q, dynamic MR imaging, and perineal ultrasonography: do they agree in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse?. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009; 20(5):541-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-009-0821-1. View

Haylen B, Ridder D, Freeman R, Swift S, Berghmans B, Lee J . An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2009; 21(1):5-26. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9. View

10.

Fauconnier A, Zareski E, Abichedid J, Bader G, Falissard B, Fritel X . Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging for grading pelvic organ prolapse according to the International Continence Society classification: which line should be used?. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007; 27(3):191-7. DOI: 10.1002/nau.20491. View

11.

Ellerkmann R, Cundiff G, Melick C, Nihira M, Leffler K, Bent A . Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185(6):1332-7; discussion 1337-8. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2001.119078. View

12.

Bo K, Angles-Acedo S, Batra A, Braekken I, Chan Y, Jorge C . International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training. Int Urogynecol J. 2022; 33(10):2633-2667. PMC: 9477909. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-022-05324-0. View

13.

Betschart C, Chen L, Ashton-Miller J, DeLancey J . On pelvic reference lines and the MR evaluation of genital prolapse: a proposal for standardization using the Pelvic Inclination Correction System. Int Urogynecol J. 2013; 24(9):1421-8. PMC: 3986860. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-013-2100-4. View

14.

Krissi H, Eitan R, Ram E, Peled Y . How accurate is preoperative evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse in women undergoing vaginal reconstruction surgery?. PLoS One. 2012; 7(10):e47027. PMC: 3467242. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047027. View

15.

Visco A, Wei J, McClure L, Handa V, Nygaard I . Effects of examination technique modifications on pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) results. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003; 14(2):136-40. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-002-1030-3. View

16.

Lakeman M, Zijta F, Peringa J, Nederveen A, Stoker J, Roovers J . Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging to quantify pelvic organ prolapse: reliability of assessment and correlation with clinical findings and pelvic floor symptoms. Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23(11):1547-54. PMC: 3484313. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-012-1772-5. View

17.

Slieker-Ten Hove M, Pool-Goudzwaard A, Eijkemans M, Steegers-Theunissen R, Burger C, Vierhout M . Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and possible risk factors in a general population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 200(2):184.e1-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.070. View

18.

Law Y, Fielding J . MRI of pelvic floor dysfunction: review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191(6 Suppl):S45-53. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.7096. View

19.

Chao F, Rosamilia A, Dwyer P, Polyakov A, Schierlitz L, Agnew G . Does pre-operative traction on the cervix approximate intra-operative uterine prolapse? A randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2012; 23(4):417-22. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1656-0. View

20.

. Pelvic Organ Prolapse: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 214. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 134(5):e126-e142. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003519. View