Diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging and pelvic floor ultrasound for diagnosis of levator ani muscle avulsion.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the diagnostic test accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and pelvic floor ultrasound for levator ani muscle (LAM) avulsion in a general parous population, with view to establishing if ultrasound could substitute for MRI to diagnose LAM avulsion. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 135 women 4 years after their first delivery. Signs and symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction were assessed using validated methods. All women underwent four-dimensional transperineal ultrasound (TPUS), three-dimensional endovaginal ultrasound (EVUS) and MRI. Images were acquired at rest, on pelvic floor muscle contraction (PFMC) and on maximum Valsalva maneuver, and analyzed by two blinded observers. Predefined cut-off values were used to diagnose LAM avulsion. In the absence of a reference standard, latent class analysis (LCA) was used to establish diagnostic test characteristics for LAM avulsion as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes were kappa (κ) agreement between imaging techniques, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) for hiatal measurements at rest, on PFMC and on maximum Valsalva maneuver, and the association of LAM avulsion with signs and symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction. RESULTS: The prevalence of LAM avulsion was 23.0% for MRI, 11.1% for TPUS and 17.8% for EVUS. The prevalence of LAM avulsion using LCA was 15.7%. The sensitivity for LAM avulsion of TPUS (71% (95% CI, 50-90%)) and EVUS (91% (95% CI, 74-100%)) was lower than that of MRI (100% (95% CI, 84-100%)). The specificity of TPUS (100% (95% CI, 97-100%)) and EVUS (95% (95% CI, 91-99%)) was higher than that of MRI (91% (95% CI, 85-97%)). MRI and EVUS had high predictive values for the assessment of major LAM avulsion (positive predictive value (PPV), 95% and negative predictive value (NPV), 100%; PPV, 100% and NPV, 98%, respectively), while TPUS had high predictive values for minor LAM avulsion (PPV, 100% and NPV, 95%). Major LAM avulsion on MRI and EVUS was associated with anterior vaginal wall prolapse, which was not found for TPUS. The agreement in the diagnosis of LAM avulsion (κ, 0.69) and hiatal measurements (ICC, 0.60-0.81) was highest between MRI and EVUS. CONCLUSIONS: Pelvic floor ultrasound can be implemented as a triage test to assess parous women for LAM avulsion because of its high specificity. Ultrasound cannot substitute for MRI because of its lower sensitivity. The predictive ability of ultrasound is moderate for the presence, and very good for the absence, of LAM avulsion. A positive test should be confirmed by a different observer or imaging technique. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Natural history of levator ani muscle avulsion 4 years following childbirth.

OBJECTIVES: The primary aim was to evaluate prospectively the natural history of levator ani muscle (LAM) avulsion 4 years following first delivery and its correlation with signs and symptoms of pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD). The secondary aim was to investigate the effect of a second vaginal delivery on the incidence of LAM avulsion and PFD. METHODS: This was a prospective longitudinal study of nulliparous women recruited antenatally, who were assessed at 36 weeks' gestation and 3 months, 1 year and 4 years postpartum for signs and symptoms of PFD and presence of LAM avulsion. Pelvic floor muscle strength was assessed by digital palpation, and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) was assessed using the POP quantification (POP-Q) system. Validated questionnaires were used to evaluate urinary, bowel and sexual function and symptoms of POP. Transperineal ultrasound was performed to assess LAM integrity and hiatal biometry. Differences in signs and symptoms of PFD over time were evaluated using a linear mixed model, separately in women who had had one delivery and in those who had two or more deliveries during the study period. RESULTS: Of 269 women recruited, 147 (55%) attended the 4-year follow-up and were examined at a mean interval of 3.8 ± 0.4 years after their first delivery. Of these, 74 (50%) had a subsequent delivery. The prevalence of LAM avulsion 4 years after a first vaginal delivery was 13%, with no difference between women who had one and those who had two or more vaginal deliveries. Women with an intact LAM and one or more deliveries showed no change in signs and symptoms of PFD at 4 years compared with the previous assessments. Of women with one vaginal delivery who were diagnosed with LAM avulsion 3 months or 1 year postpartum, those in whom the LAM avulsion was no longer evident at 4 years (42%) showed worsening of POP-Q measurements, whereas those with persistent LAM avulsion (58%) showed significant worsening in pelvic floor muscle strength and hiatal area on ultrasound. After a second vaginal delivery, no new avulsions were diagnosed, however, previous LAM avulsion became more extensive in 44% of women and hiatal area increased in women with persistent LAM avulsion. CONCLUSIONS: The first vaginal delivery carries the greatest risk for LAM avulsion, with impact on signs of PFD 4 years later. A second vaginal delivery could result in deterioration of LAM avulsion, but no new avulsions were found. © 2020 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Does 4D transperineal ultrasound have additional value over 2D transperineal ultrasound for diagnosing posterior pelvic floor disorders in women with obstructed defecation syndrome?

OBJECTIVE: To establish the diagnostic test accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) and four-dimensional (4D) transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) for diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders in women with obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS), in order to assess if 4D ultrasound imaging provides additional value. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study of 121 consecutive women with ODS. Symptoms of ODS and pelvic organ prolapse on clinical examination were assessed using validated methods. All women underwent both 2D- and 4D-TPUS. Imaging analysis was performed by two blinded observers. Posterior pelvic floor disorders were dichotomized into presence or absence, according to predefined cut-off values. In the absence of a reference standard, a composite reference standard was created from a combination of results of evacuation proctography, magnetic resonance imaging and endovaginal ultrasound. Primary outcome measures were diagnostic test characteristics of 2D- and 4D-TPUS for rectocele, enterocele, intussusception and anismus. Secondary outcome measures were interobserver agreement, agreement between the two imaging techniques, and association of severity of ODS symptoms and degree of posterior vaginal wall prolapse with conditions observed on imaging. RESULTS: For diagnosis of all four posterior pelvic floor disorders, there was no difference in sensitivity or specificity between 2D- and 4D-TPUS (P = 0.131-1.000). Good agreement between 2D- and 4D-TPUS was found for diagnosis of rectocele (κ = 0.675) and moderate agreement for diagnoses of enterocele, intussusception and anismus (κ = 0.465-0.545). There was no difference in rectocele depth measurements between the techniques (19.9 mm for 2D vs 19.0 mm for 4D, P = 0.802). Interobserver agreement was comparable for both techniques, although 2D-TPUS had excellent interobserver agreement for diagnosis of enterocele and rectocele depth measurements, while this was only moderate and good, respectively, for 4D-TPUS. Diagnoses of rectocele and enterocele on both 2D- and 4D-TPUS were significantly associated with degree of posterior vaginal wall prolapse on clinical examination (odds ratio (OR) = 1.89-2.72). The conditions observed using either imaging technique were not associated with severity of ODS symptoms (OR = 0.82-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of superiority of 4D ultrasound acquisition to dynamic 2D ultrasound acquisition for the diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders. 2D- and 4D-TPUS could be used interchangeably to screen women with symptoms of ODS. Copyright © 2018 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.