Metodología para el estudio ecográfico transperineal del suelo pélvico

Vega²,

Sánchez

et al. 2021

Int Urogynecol J

Objectives Our study aims to determine the interobserver variability of different ultrasound measurements (pubis-cervix distance, pubis-uterine fundus distance, and pubis-Douglascul-de-sac distance) previously analyzed for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse (UP) and cervical elongation CE without UP. Materials and methods We conducted a prospective observational study with 40 patients scheduled to undergo surgical correction of UP and CE without UP. All patients underwent pelvic floor ultrasound examination by an examiner (E1) who acquired ultrasound images. Using these images, E1 measured the distances for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP, and these distances were compared with those measured by the other examiner (E2). Values were analyzed by calculating ICCs with 95% CIs. Results For UP, excellent reliability was obtained for all measurements except the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was moderate (ICC 0.596; p = 0.028) and for the difference between the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver, which was good (ICC 0.691; p < 0.0005). For CE without UP, interobserver reliability was excellent for all measurements analyzed except the pubis-cervix measurement during the Valsalva maneuver, which was moderate (ICC 0.535; p = 0.052) and for the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was good (ICC 0.768; p < 0.0005). Conclusions There is excellent interobserver reliability in measurements of the difference in the distance from the pubic symphysis to the uterine fundus at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver for both UP and CE without UP, which are used for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interobserver variability of ultrasound measurements for the differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse and cervical elongation without uterine prolapse

Vega²,

Sánchez

et al. 2021

Int Urogynecol J

“…The three central slices were identified as follows: the first slice to the left showed pubic symphysis separation, the second slice showed a closed pubic symphysis, and in the slice to the right, the pubis was not visible at all, showing instead an acoustic shadow. 36 LAM evaluations were performed by assessing the type of avulsion with respect to laterality (right or left), LAM area, 37 and the type of LAM avulsion. The type of LAM avulsion (Figures 1 and 2) was evaluated in only those cases diagnosed with avulsion using multislice analysis.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Type of levator ani muscle avulsion as predictor for the disappearance of avulsion

Neurourology and Urodynamics

Bueno

2020

Objectives: The objective of our study was to establish whether the type of levator ani muscle (LAM) avulsion diagnosed 6 months after delivery influences the integrity of the LAM at 1 year after delivery and determine its influence on the levator hiatus area. Study Design: This observational prospective cohort study included 192 primiparous women with vaginal delivery. Transperineal ultrasound examinations were performed at 6 months and 1 year postpartum. Levator hiatus measurements (anteroposterior diameter, transverse diameter, and area) were performed in the plane of minimal dimensions. Complete avulsion was defined based on maximum contraction in multislice mode. Type I LAM avulsion was present when most lateral fibers of the pubovisceral muscle were observed at its insertion at the pubic level (the arch of the elevator remained intact). Type II LAM avulsion was defined as a complete detachment of the pubovisceral muscle from its insertion at the pubic level. Results: In total, 192 patients were recruited after delivery; 48 patients were diagnosed with complete LAM avulsion, and 13 patients with avulsion did not attend the second ultrasound follow-up at 1 year after delivery. Thirty-five patients with complete LAM avulsion were included in the study. At 6 months after delivery, 51 LAM avulsions were observed in 35 patients (including bilateral LAM avulsion in 16 cases), of which 54.9% were right avulsions and 45.1% left avulsions. Furthermore, 11 (five right and six left) were type I LAM avulsions at the 6-month assessment, and all of these had disappeared 1 year after delivery. However, none of the type II LAM avulsions (23 right and 17 left) observed at 6 months had disappeared at the second ultrasound examination. There were no differences between the LAM areas detected at the first and second ultrasound examinations (10.2 ± 3.3 vs 9.3 ± 1.8; P = .404). Conclusions: The type of LAM avulsion observed at 6 months after childbirth predicts LAM persistence at 1 year postpartum.

“…Measurements within the posteroinferior margin of the pubis were defined as negative values, and measurements outside this margin were defined as positive values [ 19 ]. The levator hiatus area (at rest and with Valsalva) was studied in the plane with the smallest hiatal dimension [ 20 ]. Levator ani muscle (LAM) avulsion was assessed at maximum contraction using tomographic ultrasound imaging [ 21 , 22 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictive Model for the Diagnosis of Uterine Prolapse Based on Transperineal Ultrasound

Ramos-Vega²,

Fernández‐Palacín

et al. 2022

Tomography

We want to describe a model that allows the use of transperineal ultrasound to define the probability of experiencing uterine prolapse (UP). This was a prospective observational study involving 107 patients with UP or cervical elongation (CE) without UP. The ultrasound study was performed using transperineal ultrasound and evaluated the differences in the pubis–uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver. We generated different multivariate binary logistic regression models using nonautomated methods to predict UP, including the difference in the pubis–uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver. The parameters were added progressively according to their simplicity of use and their predictive capacity for identifying UP. We used two binary logistic regression models to predict UP. Model 1 was based on the difference in the pubis–uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver and the age of the patient [AUC: 0.967 (95% CI, 0.939–0.995; p < 0.0005)]. Model 2 used the difference in the pubis–uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver, age, avulsion and ballooning (AUC: 0.971 (95% CI, 0.945–0.997; p < 0.0005)). In conclusion, the model based on the difference in the pubis–uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver and the age of the patient could predict 96.7% of patients with UP.