Importance of Translabial Ultrasound for the Diagnosis of Pelvic Organ Prolapse and Its Correlation with the POP-Q Examination: Analysis of 363 Cases

被引:15
|
作者
Nam, Gina [1 ]
Lee, Sa-Ra [2 ]
Kim, Sung-Hoon [2 ]
Chae, Hee-Dong [2 ]
机构
[1] Chung Ang Univ, Coll Med, Chung Ang Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, 102 Heukseok Ro, Seoul 06973, South Korea
[2] Univ Ulsan, Coll Med, Asan Med Ctr, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, 88,Olymp Ro 43 Gil, Seoul 05505, South Korea
关键词
enterocele; pelvic organ prolapse; pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q); rectocele; translabial ultrasound; FLOOR; SURGERY; RISK;
D O I
10.3390/jcm10184267
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
The incidence of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is increasing in our aging society. We aimed to evaluate the clinical usefulness of translabial ultrasound (TLUS) by comparing the findings of POP-Q examination and TLUS in advanced POP patients and we also aimed to evaluate the prevalence of rectocele and enterocele on the TLUS. We analyzed the TLUS and POP-Q exam findings of 363 symptomatic POP patients who visited our clinic from March 2019 to April 2021. We excluded three patients who had conditions mimicking POP, as revealed by the TLUS. The most common POP type was anterior compartment POP (68.61%), followed by apical compartment (38.61%) and posterior compartment (16.11%) POP. Agreement between the POP-Q exam and TLUS was tested using Cohen's kappa (kappa). p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The incidence of rectocele or enterocele was only 1.67% (6/360) and there was no rectocele or enterocele in most patients (246/252, 96.63%) when the POP-Q exam revealed posterior compartment POP, suggesting that they only had posterior vaginal wall relaxation. The positive predictive value of the POP-Q exam for detecting rectocele or enterocele (as revealed by TLUS) was only 2.38%, whereas the negative predictive value was 100%. In conclusion, the application of TLUS is useful in the diagnosis of POP, especially for differentiation of true POP from conditions mimicking POP. The correlation between the POP-Q exam and TLUS is low, especially in posterior compartment POP, and therefore, patients with POP-Q exam findings suggesting posterior compartment POP should undergo TLUS to check for rectocele or enterocele. The use of TLUS in the diagnosis of POP patients can improve the accuracy of the diagnosis of POP patients in conjunction with a POP-Q exam.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [21] Comparison of magnetic resonance defecography grading with POP-Q staging and Baden–Walker grading in the evaluation of female pelvic organ prolapse
    Grant R. Pollock
    Christian O. Twiss
    Stephane Chartier
    Srinivasan Vedantham
    Joel Funk
    Hina Arif Tiwari
    Abdominal Radiology, 2021, 46 : 1373 - 1380
  • [22] Correlation between clinical examination and perineal ultrasound in women treated for pelvic organ prolapse
    Maheut, Celia
    Vernet, Thibaud
    Le Boite, Hugo
    Fernandez, Herve
    Capmas, Perrine
    JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY OBSTETRICS AND HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2023, 52 (09)
  • [23] Comparison of magnetic resonance defecography grading with POP-Q staging and Baden-Walker grading in the evaluation of female pelvic organ prolapse
    Pollock, Grant R.
    Twiss, Christian O.
    Chartier, Stephane
    Vedantham, Srinivasan
    Funk, Joel
    Tiwari, Hina Arif
    ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2021, 46 (04) : 1373 - 1380
  • [24] Relationship between the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) before and after anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery
    Teleman, P.
    Laurikainen, E.
    Kinne, I.
    Pogosean, R.
    Jakobsson, U.
    Rudnicki, M.
    INTERNATIONAL UROGYNECOLOGY JOURNAL, 2015, 26 (02) : 195 - 200
  • [25] Relationship between the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system (POP-Q), the Pelvic Floor Impact Questionnaire (PFIQ-7), and the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20) before and after anterior vaginal wall prolapse surgery
    P. Teleman
    E. Laurikainen
    I. Kinne
    R. Pogosean
    U. Jakobsson
    M. Rudnicki
    International Urogynecology Journal, 2015, 26 : 195 - 200