Role of magnetic resonance imaging in evaluation of vault prolapse

Authors

  • J. B. Sharma Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  • Mukesh Kamal Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  • Kavita Pandey Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  • Smriti Hari Department of Radiodiagnosis, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  • Rajesh Kumari Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  • Ashita Aggarwal Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  • Nisha N. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
  • Manasi Deoghare Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20241066

Keywords:

Vault prolapse, Rectocele, Pelvic organ prolapse quantification, Cystocele, Enterocele, Magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract

Background: Vault prolapse usually follows vaginal or abdominal hysterectomy and is usually associated with cystocele, rectocele and enterocele. Diagnosis is made clinically but magnetic resonance imaging can better detect enterocele than clinical finding.

Methods: It was a prospective study over 3 years, so women presenting with vault prolapse, in which grading of vault prolapse was made clinically and by pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POPQ). Magnetic resonance imaging was performed for all cases to quantify prolapse and compare findings of MRI and POPQ with intraoperative findings of prolapse.

Results: Mean age, parity, BMI were 58.4 years, 3.5, 22.71kg/m2 respectively. Most patients (75%) had vaginal hysterectomy while 25% had abdominal hysterectomy. Symptoms were pressure in lower abdomen and perineum (55%), bulge and feeling of mass descending in perineum (100%) and chronic constipation (60%). The type of prolapse was cystocele (100%), rectocele (100%), vault prolapse (100%) and enterocele (45%). MRI had agreement with intraoperative findings in 65% cases in cystocele, 45% cases in vault prolapse, 50% in rectocele but had much higher agreement of 88.8% for enterocele. While POPQ had higher agreement with intraoperative findings for cystocele (80%), vault prolapse (98%), rectocele (80%) but had poorer agreement for enterocele (66.6%).

Conclusions: This study demonstrated that MRI was inferior in diagnosis of cystocele, rectocele and vault prolapse than POPQ but was superior in identification of enterocele than POPQ.

References

Pollock GR, Twiss CO, Chartier S, Vedantham S, Funk J, Arif Tiwari H. Comparison of magnetic resonance defecography grading with POP-Q staging and Baden-Walker grading in the evaluation of female pelvic organ prolapse. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(4):1373-80.

Mahoney C, Hindle A, Rajashanker B, Kearney R. MR scan evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse mesh complications and agreement with intra-operative findings. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(8):1559-66.

Śliwa J, Kryza-Ottou A, Zimmer-Stelmach A, Zimmer M. A new technique of laparoscopic fixation of the uterus to the anterior abdominal wall with the use of overfascial mesh in the treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):2165-7.

Peker N, Erdem B, Kaban A. Does home birth reduce the risk of pelvic organ prolapse? Ginekol Pol. 2018;89(8):432-36.

Madhu C, Swift S, Moloney-Geany S, Drake MJ. How to use the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system? Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(S6):S39-S43.

Lin FC, Funk JT, Tiwari HA, Kalb BT, Twiss CO. Dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse compared to physical examination findings. Urol. 2018;119:49-54.

Arif-Tiwari H, Twiss CO, Lin FC, Funk JT, Vedantham S, Martin DR, et al. Improved detection of pelvic organ prolapse: comparative utility of defecography phase sequence to nondefecography valsalva maneuvers in dynamic pelvic floor magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019;48(4):342-347.

Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K, Brubaker LP, DeLancey JO, Klarskov P, et al. The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996;175(1):10-7.

Betschart C, Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, Delancey JO. On pelvic reference lines and the MR evaluation of genital prolapse: a proposal for standardization using the pelvic inclination correction system. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(9):1421-8.

Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(1):5-26.

Maccioni F, Alt CD. MRI of the Pelvic Floor and MR Defecography. 2018 Mar 21. In: Hodler J, Kubik-Huch RA, von Schulthess GK, editors. Diseases of the Abdomen and Pelvis 2018-2021: Diagnostic Imaging - IDKD Book. Cham (CH): Springer; 2018.

El Sayed RF, Alt CD, Maccioni F, Meissnitzer M, Masselli G, Manganaro L, et al. ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction-joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(5):2067-85.

Elsayed RF. Pelvic floor imaging. In: Shaaban AM, editor. Diagnostic imaging gynecol. 2nd ed. Amirsys: Elsevier; 2015:8/30-8/39.

Yoon I, Gupta N. Pelvic Prolapse Imaging. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024.

Chamié LP, Ribeiro DMFR, Caiado AHM, Warmbrand G, Serafini PC. Translabial US and dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor: normal anatomy and dysfunction. Radiographics. 2018;38(1):287-308.

Picchia S, Rengo M, Bellini D, Caruso D, Pironti E, Floris R, et al. Dynamic MR of the pelvic floor: Influence of alternative methods to draw the pubococcygeal line (PCL) on the grading of pelvic floor descent. Eur J Radiol Open. 2019;6:187-91.

Pannu HK, Javitt MC, Glanc P, Bhosale PR, Harisinghani MG, Khati NJ, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria pelvic floor dysfunction. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015;12(2):134-42.

DeLancey JO. What's new in the functional anatomy of pelvic organ prolapse? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2016;28(5):420-9.

Baeßler K, Aigmüller T, Albrich S, Anthuber C, Finas D, Fink T, et al. Diagnosis and therapy of female pelvic organ prolapse. Guideline of the DGGG, SGGG and OEGGG (S2e-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/006, April 2016). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016;76(12):1287-301.

Swamy N, Bajaj G, Olliphant SS, Henry JA, Jambhekar K, Pandey T, et al. Pelvic floor imaging with MR defecography: correlation with gynecologic pelvic organ prolapse quantification. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(4):1381-9.

van IJsselmuiden MN, Lecomte-Grosbras P, Witz JF, Brieu M, Cosson M, van Eijndhoven HWF. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging to quantify pelvic organ mobility after treatment for uterine descent: differences between surgical procedures. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(10):2119-27.

Grob ATM, Olde Heuvel J, Futterer JJ, Massop D, Veenstra van Nieuwenhoven AL, Simonis FFJ, et al. Underestimation of pelvic organ prolapse in the supine straining position, based on magnetic resonance imaging findings. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(11):1939-44.

Kobi M, Flusberg M, Paroder V, Chernyak V. Practical guide to dynamic pelvic floor MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47(5):1155-70.

Downloads

Published

2024-04-26

Issue

Vol. 13 No. 5 (2024): May 2024

Section

Original Research Articles