Dynamic MR of the pelvic floor: Influence of alternative methods to draw the pubococcygeal line (PCL) on the grading of pelvic floor descent.

Defecography FIESTA, Fast Imaging Employing Steady-state Acquisition FOV, field of view Fecal incontinence Incontinence MR, magnetic Resonance Magnetic resonance Mcc, M line obtained by PCLcc Msc, M line obtained by PCLsc Mtip, M line obtained by PCLtip PCL, pubococcygeal line PCLcc, pubococcygeal line posterior point on the last coccygeal joint PCLsc, pubococcygeal line posterior point on the sacrococcygeal joint PCLtip, pubococcygeal line posterior point on the tip of the coccyx PFD, pelvic floor dysfunction Pelvic floor Pelvic pain STARD, Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy TSE, turbo spin echo Urinary

Journal

European journal of radiology open
ISSN: 2352-0477
Titre abrégé: Eur J Radiol Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101650225

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 14 01 2019
accepted: 14 05 2019
entrez: 14 6 2019
pubmed: 14 6 2019
medline: 14 6 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To evaluate the impact of the pubococcygeal line (PCL) position on hiatal descent grading, comparing the method recommended by the official guidelines with the other two most common methods reported in literature. Female patients prospectively included performed dynamic-MR (1,5 T) in supine position. Rectum and vagina were filled with ultrasound gel. MR protocol included TSE T2 weighted sequences on axial/sagittal/coronal planes and steady-state sequences (FIESTA) on midsagittal plane during three phases (rest, strain and defecation). On each phase, the posterior point of PCL was traced in the region recommended by the official guidelines (last coccygeal joint or PCLcc) and in the other two regions: coccyx's tip (PCLtip) and sacrococcygeal joint (PCLsc). The resulting grades of pelvic floor descent (according to HMO-System) were compared. Inter-reader and intra-reader agreement were evaluated. The final population consisted of 60 patients (56yy±10). No significant differences in grading were observed using PCLtip and PCLcc in all phases (p = 0.3016/0.0719/0.0719 during rest/strain/defecation). Using PCLsc, the grading was significantly overestimated compared to PCLcc in all phases (p = 0.0041/0.0001/0.0001 during rest/strain/defecation). Inter-reader and intra-reader agreement were significantly higher using PCLtip (p < 0.05). PCLtip is a reliable and highly reproducible option to the official PCLcc to correctly grade the pelvic floor descent and could be used when the PCLcc is not clearly visible. The use of PCLsc overestimates the grading compared to the official PCLcc and should not be used to avoid wrong patients' management.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31193423
doi: 10.1016/j.ejro.2019.05.002
pii: S2352-0477(19)30025-5
pmc: PMC6527906
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

187-191

Références

Am Fam Physician. 2010 May 1;81(9):1111-7
pubmed: 20433127
Radiology. 2008 Aug;248(2):518-30
pubmed: 18574134
Eur Spine J. 2013 Apr;22(4):863-70
pubmed: 23192732
Radiographics. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):949-67
pubmed: 18635623
Abdom Imaging. 2008 May-Jun;33(3):371-80
pubmed: 17610006
Neurourol Urodyn. 2011 Nov;30(8):1613-9
pubmed: 21717498
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Oct;18(5):555-9
pubmed: 16932052
Eur Radiol. 2017 May;27(5):2067-2085
pubmed: 27488850
Radiology. 2008 Nov;249(2):534-40
pubmed: 18796659
Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2017 Jun;38(3):188-199
pubmed: 28705367
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005 May;192(5):1488-95
pubmed: 15902147
Int Dig Health Legis. 1997;48(2):231-4
pubmed: 11656783
Neurourol Urodyn. 2018 Nov;37(8):2702-2709
pubmed: 29974511
BMJ Open. 2016 Nov 14;6(11):e012799
pubmed: 28137831
Urology. 1999 Sep;54(3):454-7
pubmed: 10475353

Auteurs

Simona Picchia (S)

Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Diagnostic Imaging Unit - I.C.O.T. Hospital, I.C.O.T, Via F. Faggiana 34, 04100 Latina, Italy.

Marco Rengo (M)

Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Diagnostic Imaging Unit - I.C.O.T. Hospital, I.C.O.T, Via F. Faggiana 34, 04100 Latina, Italy.

Davide Bellini (D)

Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Diagnostic Imaging Unit - I.C.O.T. Hospital, I.C.O.T, Via F. Faggiana 34, 04100 Latina, Italy.

Damiano Caruso (D)

Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Radiology Unit - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.

Eliseo Pironti (E)

Casa di Cura Privata Villa Benedetta Hospital, Circonvallazione Cornelia, 65, 00165, Rome, Italy.

Roberto Floris (R)

"Tor Vergata"- University of Rome. Department of Radiology - Tor Vergata Hospital, Viale Oxford, 81, 00133 Roma RM, Italy.

Andrea Laghi (A)

Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, "Sapienza" - University of Rome, Radiology Unit - Sant'Andrea University Hospital, Via di Grottarossa, 1035, 00189 Rome, Italy.

Classifications MeSH