Diagnostic value of pelvic floor ultrasonography for diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review
- 135 Downloads
Introduction and hypothesis
Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a common medical condition universally. In addition to physical examination, experts have increasingly turned their attention to ultrasound in diagnosing POP for its low cost and dynamic imaging. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the methods of pelvic floor ultrasound in diagnosing POP, which has been lacking up till now.
We included original papers comparing the outcome of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification system and ultrasound, published from 2008 to present in English, using electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PUBMED). All stages of the review were conducted in parallel by two reviewers.
Fifteen papers were included. We found that current methods have advantages and limitations. The main methods are to measure levator hiatus-related parameters and distances between the lowest point of the pelvic organs and reference lines during Valsalva maneuver, contraction, and at rest.
Pelvic floor ultrasound is valuable in diagnosing POP, yet suffers from a weakness in precision compared with physical examination. From the existing research, we found that the differences in baseline data such as weight, height, ethnicity, etc., may affect the cutoffs of the above-mentioned parameters. Further research is required to find one appropriate cutoff for each parameter, even if it is necessary to set group values for every parameter according to varying situations.
KeywordsPelvic floor ultrasound Pelvic organ prolapse Clinical examination POP-Q
Foundation of Sichuan Provincial Science and Technology Program (Grant No. 2019YFH0147), Foundation of Chengdu Municipal Science and Technology Program (Grant No. 2018YF0500195SN) and Foundation of West China Second Hospital Program (Grant No. KX111) are acknowledged.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The authors acknowledge the following financial support: Foundation of Sichuan Provincial Science and Technology Program (Grant No. 2019YFH0147); Foundation of Chengdu Municipal Science and Technology Program (Grant No. 2018YF0500195SN); Foundation of West China Second Hospital Program (Grant No. KX111).
- 1.Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, 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(4):655–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3003-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 5.Yuk JS, Lee JH, Hur JY, Shin JH. The prevalence and treatment pattern of clinically diagnosed pelvic organ prolapse: a Korean National Health Insurance Database-based cross-sectional study 2009-2015. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1334. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19692-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Albrich SB, Welker K, Wolpert B, Steetskamp J, Porta S, Hasenburg A, et al. How common is ballooning? Hiatal area on 3D transperineal ultrasound in urogynecological patients and its association with lower urinary tract symptoms. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(1):103–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4200-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Lakeman MM, Zijta FM, Peringa J, Nederveen AJ, Stoker J, Roovers JP. 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(11):1547–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1772-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Broekhuis SR, Kluivers KB, Hendriks JC, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Vierhout ME. POP-Q, dynamic MR imaging, and perineal ultrasonography: do they agree in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(5):541–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0821-1.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 43.Munabi IG, Mirembe F, Luboga IG. Human pelvis height is associated with other pelvis measurements of obstetric value. Anat J Afr. 2015;4(1):457–65.Google Scholar
- 49.Panman C, Wiegersma M, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Lisman-Van Leeuwen Y, Vermeulen KM, et al. Two-year effects and cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in mild pelvic organ prolapse: a randomised controlled trial in primary care. BJOG. 2017;124(3):511–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13992.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 53.Majida M, Braekken IH, Umek W, Bo K, Saltyte Benth J, Ellstrom Engh M. Interobserver repeatability of three- and four-dimensional transperineal ultrasound assessment of pelvic floor muscle anatomy and function. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(5):567–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 59.Onwude JL. Genital prolapse in women. BMJ Clin Evid. 2012;3:817Google Scholar