METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving 195 women enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study and seen 20 years after an index birth. All had a standardized patient-administered questionnaire, the International Continence Society Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification assessment and 4D translabial ultrasound. Main outcome measures were objective POP clinically and on translabial ultrasound. Postimaging assessment of levator integrity and sonographically determined pelvic organ descent was done blinded against other data.
RESULTS: Of 195 women who were seen a mean of 23 (range, 19.4-46.2) years after their first birth, one declined ultrasound assessment and was excluded, leaving 194. Mean age was 50.2 (range 36.9-66.5) years with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.6 (range, 18.3-54.3) kg/m2 . Median parity was 3 (range 1-14). Ninety-one percent (n = 176) had delivered vaginally. Eighteen percent (n = 34) were symptomatic of prolapse. Clinically, 36% (n = 69) had significant POP. Levator avulsion was diagnosed in 16% (n = 31). Mean levator avulsion defect score was 2.2 (range, 0-12). On univariate analysis, levator avulsion and levator avulsion defect score were associated with clinically and sonographically significant POP, that is, odds ratio 2.6 (1.2-5.7), P = .01; and odds ratio 3.3 (1.4-7.7); P = .003, respectively; Ba (P
METHODS: A cross-sectional study, incorporating 195 women involved in a longitudinal cohort study. Palpation for levator integrity was performed, followed by a four-dimensional translabial ultrasound. LAM avulsion defects were diagnosed in the presence of puborectalis muscle detachment from its insertion. Post-processing analysis of ultrasound volumes for LAM integrity on TUI was performed blinded against palpation findings. Agreement between methods was assessed using Cohen's κ.
RESULTS: In all, 388 paired assessments of LAM bilaterally, were available. Sixteen (8.2%) unilateral avulsion defects were detected on palpation. Sonographically, 31 (16%) were diagnosed with avulsions: 4.6% bilateral and 11.3% unilateral. An overall agreement of 91% was observed between digital palpation and TUI, yielding a Cohen's κ of 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.15-0.48) demonstrating "fair agreement": and implying 25% sensitivity, 98% specificity, 63% positive predictive value, and 92% negative predictive value. Analysis of the first and last 20 palpations showed no change in performance during the 13-day study period.
CONCLUSION: Assessment of LAM avulsion defects by digital palpation is feasible but may require substantial training. Confirmation by imaging is crucial, especially if the diagnosis of avulsion may influence clinical management.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving 195 women, participants of the Dunedin arm of the ProLong study (PROlapse and incontinence LONG-term research study) seen 20 years after their index birth. Assessment included a standardized questionnaire, ICS POP-Q and 4D translabial ultrasound. Post-imaging analysis of LAM and EAS integrity was undertaken blinded against other data. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test and results were expressed as odds ratios (OR).
RESULTS: LAM avulsion and EAS defects were diagnosed in 31 (16%) and 24 (12.4%) women respectively. No significant difference in the prevalence of levator avulsion and EAS defects between primiparous (VP1) and multiparous (VP2+) women who had delivered vaginally (OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.72-5.01, p = 0.26) and (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4-3.8, p = 0.76) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Most LAM avulsions and EAS defects seem to be caused by the first vaginal birth. Subsequent vaginal deliveries after the first were unlikely to cause further LAM trauma.