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

Correlation Magnetic resonance imaging POP-Q Pelvic organ prolapse Quantification Upright

Journal

International urogynecology journal
ISSN: 1433-3023
Titre abrégé: Int Urogynecol J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101567041

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
14 May 2024
Historique:
received: 06 03 2024
accepted: 06 04 2024
medline: 15 5 2024
pubmed: 15 5 2024
entrez: 14 5 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

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. 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. 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. 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.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1007/s00192-024-05802-7 PMID: 38743071
pubmed: 38743071
doi: 10.1007/s00192-024-05802-7
pii: 10.1007/s00192-024-05802-7
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

© 2024. The Author(s).

Références

Slieker-ten Hove MCP, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJC, et al. Symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse and possible risk factors in a general population. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200:184.e1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.070 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.08.070 pubmed: 19110218
Haylen BT, De Ridder D, Freeman RM, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:5–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9 pubmed: 19937315
Bø K, Anglès-Acedo S, Batra A, et al. International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: pelvic floor muscle training. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33:2633–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00192-022-05324-0 .
doi: 10.1007/S00192-022-05324-0 pubmed: 35980443 pmcid: 9477909
Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Brubaker LP, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175:10–7.
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0
Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27:165–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-015-2932-1 pubmed: 26755051
Pelvic Organ Prolapse: ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 214. Obstet Gynecol 2019;134:e126–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003519
Urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in women: management. NICE guideline. 2019.
Chao FL, Rosamilia A, Dwyer PL, et al. Does pre-operative traction on the cervix approximate intra-operative uterine prolapse? A randomised controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23:417–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00192-011-1656-0 .
doi: 10.1007/S00192-011-1656-0 pubmed: 22278714
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:e47027. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0047027
doi: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0047027 pubmed: 23056566 pmcid: 3467242
Chaudhuri S, Vaitheeswari J. Correlation of preoperative and intraoperative assessment of pelvic organ prolapse by pelvic organ prolapse quantification system. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2022;157:466–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/IJGO.13894 .
doi: 10.1002/IJGO.13894
Visco AG, Wei JT, McClure LA, et al. Effects of examination technique modifications on pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) results. Int Urogynecol J. 2003;14:136–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-002-1030-3 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-002-1030-3
Manonai J, Wattanayingcharoenchai R. Relationship between pelvic floor symptoms and POP-Q measurements. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35:724–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22786 .
doi: 10.1002/nau.22786 pubmed: 25919311
Ellerkmann RM, Cundiff GW, Melick CF, et al. Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185:1332–8. https://doi.org/10.1067/MOB.2001.119078 .
doi: 10.1067/MOB.2001.119078 pubmed: 11744905
Law YM, Fielding JR. MRI of pelvic floor dysfunction: review. Am J Roentgenol 2008;191:S45–53.
doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.7096
Fauconnier A, Zareski E, Abichedid J, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging for grading pelvic organ prolapse according to the International Continence Society classification: which line should be used? Neurourol Urodyn. 2008;27:191–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.20491 .
doi: 10.1002/nau.20491 pubmed: 17696158
Broekhuis SR, Kluivers KB, Hendriks JCM, et al. POP-Q, dynamic MR imaging, and perineal ultrasonography: do they agree in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse?. 2009;20:541-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0821-1
doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0821-1 pubmed: 19221680
Lakeman MME, Zijta FM, Peringa J, et al. 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;23:1547–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00192-012-1772-5 .
doi: 10.1007/S00192-012-1772-5 pubmed: 22531955 pmcid: 3484313
Grob ATM, Olde Heuvel J, Futterer JJ, 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 pubmed: 30656361 pmcid: 6834735
Betschart C, Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JOL. 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;24:1421–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00192-013-2100-4 .
doi: 10.1007/S00192-013-2100-4 pubmed: 23640002 pmcid: 3986860
Reiner CS, Williamson T, Winklehner T, et al. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2017.05.005 .
doi: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2017.05.005 pubmed: 28609701 pmcid: 5526449
Morsinkhof LM, Schulten MK, DeLancey JOL, et al. Pelvic inclination correction system for magnetic resonance imaging analysis of pelvic organ prolapse in upright position. Int Urogynecol J. 2022;33:2801–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-022-05289-0 .
doi: 10.1007/s00192-022-05289-0 pubmed: 35907021 pmcid: 9477951
Virzì A, Muller CO, Marret JB, et al. Comprehensive review of 3D segmentation software tools for MRI usable for pelvic surgery planning. J Digit Imaging. 2020;33:99–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10278-019-00239-7 .
doi: 10.1007/S10278-019-00239-7 pubmed: 31236743
Hall AF, Theofrastous JP, Cundiff GW, et al. 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;175:1467–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70091-1 .
doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70091-1 pubmed: 8987926
Pham T, Burgart A, Kenton K, et al. Current use of pelvic organ prolapse quantification by AUGS and ICS members. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17:67–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0B013E318207C904 .
doi: 10.1097/SPV.0B013E318207C904 pubmed: 22453690
Madhu C, Swift S, Moloney-Geany S, Drake MJ. How to use the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) system? Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:S39–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/NAU.23740 .
doi: 10.1002/NAU.23740 pubmed: 30614056

Auteurs

Annemarie van der Steen (A)

Multi Modality Medical Imaging (M3I), TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands. a.vandersteen-1@utwente.nl.
Department of Gynecology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Hengelo, The Netherlands. a.vandersteen-1@utwente.nl.
ORCID: 0000-0001-8645-7586

Kim Y Jochem (KY)

Multi Modality Medical Imaging (M3I), TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Esther C J Consten (ECJ)

Department of Surgery, Meander Medisch Centrum, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Department of Surgery, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Frank F J Simonis (FFJ)

Magnetic Detection and Imaging (MD&I), TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.

Anique T M Grob (ATM)

Multi Modality Medical Imaging (M3I), TechMed Centre, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Department of Gynecology, Ziekenhuisgroep Twente, Hengelo, The Netherlands.

Classifications MeSH