Objective: To preliminarily evaluate the feasibility of pelvic floor ultrasound in assessing stress urinary incontinence (SUI) in women, in comparison with dynamic pelvic floor magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 8 female patients diagnosed with SUI. Morphological and dynamic pelvic floor parameters were measured using ultrasound and compared with dynamic MRI findings. Correlations between the two modalities were assessed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results: The mean age was 56.6 ± 9.5 years, with a mean parity of 3.6 ± 2.2. Most patients were classified as Stamey grade I–II. The posterior urethrovesical angle (PUVA) increased during Valsalva and showed good correlation between ultrasound and MRI (r = 0.79). Levator hiatus area demonstrated very high correlation (r = 0.97 during Valsalva). Bladder descent also showed strong correlation (r = 0.83), whereas bladder neck mobility showed weak correlation (r ≈ 0.17). Bladder neck funneling was observed in 25% of cases, with complete agreement between dynamic MRI and pelvic floor ultrasound. Conclusion: Preliminary findings suggest that pelvic floor ultrasound can reflect morphological and dynamic changes of the pelvic floor with a certain degree of correlation to MRI. Ultrasound may serve as a useful initial assessment tool; however, larger studies are required to validate these findings.
PELVIC FLOOR ULTRASOUND IN THE EVALUATION OF STRESS URINARY INCONTINENCE IN WOMEN: A COMPARATIVE STUDY WITH DYNAMIC MRI ABSTRACT
0
Views
0
Downloads
Keywords
Stress urinary incontinence; pelvic floor ultrasound; dynamic pelvic floor MRI.
Abstract
References
[1]
Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, 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(1):5–26. doi:10.1007/s00192-009-0976-9
Google Scholar
[2]
Dietz HP. Pelvic floor ultrasound: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;35(5):623–631. doi:10.1002/uog.7651
Google Scholar
[3]
Ormsby EL, Dietz HP, Maher CF. Comparison of transperineal sonography and dynamic pelvic floor MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(4):1036–1041. doi:10.2214/AJR.04.1300
Google Scholar
[4]
Majida M, Braekken IH, Bø K, Engh ME. Comparison of transperineal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of pelvic floor structures. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29(5):580–585. doi:10.1002/uog.4018
Google Scholar
[5]
International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology (ISUOG). ISUOG practice guidelines: role of ultrasound in the assessment of pelvic floor disorders. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(6):797–807. doi:10.1002/uog.20165
Google Scholar
[6]
Schaer GN, Perucchini D, Munz E, Peschers U, Koechli OR, Delancey JO. Perineal ultrasound for evaluating the female pelvic floor. J Urol. 1996;155(3):1149–1152.
Google Scholar
[7]
Dietz HP, Shek KL. Three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(3):291–300. doi:10.1002/uog.1855
Google Scholar
[8]
Minassian VA, Stewart WF, Wood GC. Urinary incontinence in women: a review of prevalence studies. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(2 Pt 1):324–331. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000297817.09097.f1
Google Scholar
[9]
Rortveit G, Daltveit AK, Hannestad YS, Hunskaar S; Norwegian EPINCONT Study. Urinary incontinence after vaginal delivery or cesarean section. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(10):900–907. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa021788
Google Scholar
[10]
DeLancey JO. Structural support of the urethra: the hammock hypothesis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170(6):1713–1723. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(94)70346-3
Google Scholar
[11]
Petros PE, Ulmsten UI. An integral theory of female urinary incontinence. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Suppl. 1990;153:7–31. doi:10.3109/00016349009013313
Google Scholar