Pelvic floor morphology in the standing position using upright computed tomography: age and sex differences.
Aging
Computed tomography
Pelvic floor
Reference values
Sex differences
Standing position
Journal
International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
21
02
2020
accepted:
08
05
2020
pubmed:
6
6
2020
medline:
24
6
2021
entrez:
6
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
This study was aimed at comparing pelvic floor parameters between the standing and supine positions using upright computed tomography (CT) and evaluating the effects of sex and age in normal healthy volunteers. In total, 139 volunteers (70 men, mean 46.7 years; 69 women, mean 47.3 years) underwent both upright CT in the standing position and conventional CT in the supine position. The distances from the bladder neck to the pubococcygeal line (PCL) and anorectal junction (ARJ), defined as the posterior aspect of the puborectalis muscle, to PCL were measured. The length, width, and area of the levator hiatus (LH) were measured on oblique axial images. The bladder neck (men, 22.2 ± 4.9 mm vs 28.3 ± 5.3 mm; women, 9.0 ± 5.1 mm vs 19.0 ± 4.0 mm) and ARJ (men, -18.8 ± 5.5 mm vs -12.1 ± 5.1 mm; women, -20.0 ± 4.7 mm vs -11.2 ± 4.3 mm) were significantly lower in the standing position than in the supine position (all p < 0.0001). The LH area (men, 1,990 ± 380 mm The bladder neck and ARJ descend and the LH area enlarges in the standing position. Pelvic floor mobility is greater in women than in men. Descent of the ARJ in the standing position is associated with aging in women.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32500162
doi: 10.1007/s00192-020-04335-z
pii: 10.1007/s00192-020-04335-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2387-2393Subventions
Organisme : Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
ID : JP17H04266
Références
Bitti GT, Argiolas GM, Ballicu N, Caddeo E, Cecconi M, Demurtas G, et al. Pelvic floor failure: MR imaging evaluation of anatomic and functional abnormalities. Radiographics. 2014;34:429–48. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.342125050 .
doi: 10.1148/rg.342125050
Garcia del Salto L, de Miguel CJ, Aguilera del Hoyo LF, Gutierrez Velasco L, Fraga Rivas P, Manzano Paradela M, et al. MR imaging-based assessment of the female pelvic floor. Radiographics. 2014;34:1417–39. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.345140137 .
doi: 10.1148/rg.345140137
Ribas Y, Hotouras A, Chan CL, Clave P. Imaging of pelvic floor disorders: are we underestimating gravity? Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57:1242–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0000000000000201 .
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000201
Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hale DS, Benson JT. Female pelvic organ prolapse: a comparison of triphasic dynamic MR imaging and triphasic fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:81–8. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.1.1740081 .
doi: 10.2214/ajr.174.1.1740081
Jinzaki M, Yamada Y, Nagura T, Nakahara T, Yokoyama Y, Narita K, et al. Development of upright computed tomography with area detector for whole-body scans: phantom study, efficacy on workflow, effect of gravity on human body, and potential clinical impact. Investig Radiol. 2020;55:73–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000603 .
doi: 10.1097/RLI.0000000000000603
MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, Wilson D. The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. BJOG. 2000;107:1460–70.
Yamada Y, Yamada M, Yokoyama Y, Tanabe A, Matsuoka S, Niijima Y, et al. Differences in lung and lobe volumes between supine and standing positions scanned with conventional and newly developed 320-detector-row upright CT: intra-individual comparison. Respiration. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507265 .
doi: 10.1159/000507265
Yamada Y, Jinzaki M, Hosokawa T, Tanami Y, Sugiura H, Abe T, et al. Dose reduction in chest CT: comparison of the adaptive iterative dose reduction 3D, adaptive iterative dose reduction, and filtered back projection reconstruction techniques. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:4185–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.07.013 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.07.013
El Sayed RF, Alt CD, Maccioni F, Meissnitzer M, Masselli G, Manganaro L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction—joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Eur Radiol. 2017;27:2067–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4471-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s00330-016-4471-7
Goh V, Halligan S, Kaplan G, Healy JC, Bartram CI. Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor in asymptomatic subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;174:661–6. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.3.1740661 .
doi: 10.2214/ajr.174.3.1740661
Barbaric ZL, Marumoto AK, Raz S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the perineum and pelvic floor. Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;12:83–92.
Nardos R, Thurmond A, Holland A, Gregory WT. Pelvic floor levator hiatus measurements: MRI versus ultrasound. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2014;20:216–21. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0000000000000079 .
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000079
Gregory WT, Nardos R, Worstell T, Thurmond A. Measuring the levator hiatus with axial MRI sequences: adjusting the angle of acquisition. Neurourol Urodyn. 2011;30:113–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20957 .
doi: 10.1002/nau.20957
Kepenekci I, Keskinkilic B, Akinsu F, Cakir P, Elhan AH, Erkek AB, et al. Prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in the female population and the impact of age, mode of delivery, and parity. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181fd2356 .
doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3181fd2356
Barber MD, Lambers A, Visco AG, Bump RC. Effect of patient position on clinical evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00859-0 .
doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00859-0
Swift SE, Herring M. Comparison of pelvic organ prolapse in the dorsal lithotomy compared with the standing position. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:961–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00111-2 .
doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00111-2
Braverman M, Kamisan Atan I, Turel F, Friedman T, Dietz HP. Does patient posture affect the ultrasound evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse? J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38:233–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14688 .
doi: 10.1002/jum.14688
Maglinte DD, Hale DS, Sandrasegaran K. Comparison between dynamic cystocolpoproctography and dynamic pelvic floor MRI: pros and cons: which is the "functional" examination for anorectal and pelvic floor dysfunction? Abdom Imaging. 2013;38:952–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9870-x .
doi: 10.1007/s00261-012-9870-x
Iacobellis F, Brillantino A, Renzi A, Monaco L, Serra N, Feragalli B, et al. MR imaging in diagnosis of pelvic floor descent: supine versus sitting position. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:6594152. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6594152 .
doi: 10.1155/2016/6594152
Friedman B, Stothers L, Lazare D, Macnab A. Positional pelvic organ prolapse (POP) evaluation using open, weight-bearing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9:197–200. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2767 .
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2767
Abdulaziz M, Kavanagh A, Stothers L, Macnab AJ. Relevance of open magnetic resonance imaging position (sitting and standing) to quantify pelvic organ prolapse in women. Can Urol Assoc J. 2018;12:E453–60. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.5186 .
doi: 10.5489/cuaj.5186
Grob ATM, Olde Heuvel J, Futterer JJ, Massop D, Veenstra van Nieuwenhoven AL, Simonis FFJ, et al. Underestimation of pelvic organ prolapse in the supine straining position, based on magnetic resonance imaging findings. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30:1939–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-03862-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-018-03862-0
Mouritsen L, Bach P. Ultrasonic evaluation of bladder neck position and mobility: the influence of urethral catheter, bladder volume, and body position. Neurourol Urodyn. 1994;13:637–46.
Dietz HP, Shek C, Clarke B. Biometry of the pubovisceral muscle and levator hiatus by three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:580–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.1899 .
doi: 10.1002/uog.1899
Woodfield CA, Krishnamoorthy S, Hampton BS, Brody JM. Imaging pelvic floor disorders: trend toward comprehensive MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;194:1640–9. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3670 .
doi: 10.2214/AJR.09.3670
Bushman W. Etiology, epidemiology, and natural history of benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urol Clin North Am. 2009;36:403–415, v. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2009.07.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2009.07.003
Lee SE, Chung JS, Han BK, Moon KH, Hwang SI, Lee HJ, et al. Relationship of prostate-specific antigen and prostate volume in Korean men with biopsy-proven benign prostatic hyperplasia. Urology. 2008;71:395–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2007.10.019
Howard D, Delancey JO, Tunn R, Ashton-Miller JA. Racial differences in the structure and function of the stress urinary continence mechanism. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:713–7.