-
Something wrong with this record ?
When to assess residual anal sphincter defect after OASI by ultrasound
P. Hubka, J. Dvorak, M. Lincova, J. Masata, A. Martan, K. Svabik
Language English Country Ireland
Document type Journal Article
- MeSH
- Anal Canal diagnostic imaging injuries MeSH
- Fecal Incontinence * diagnostic imaging etiology MeSH
- Obstetric Labor Complications * MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Perineum injuries MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Pregnancy MeSH
- Ultrasonography methods MeSH
- Delivery, Obstetric adverse effects MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Pregnancy MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
OBJECTIVES: Obstetrical anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) are complications of vaginal delivery. Unrepaired anal sphincter after delivery increases the risk of anal incontinence. The aim of our study is to search for residual defect after OASI repair by 4D introital ultrasound (US). We hypothesised that imaging prior to hospital discharge would show the same number of defects as assessment at 3 months. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of 138 patients with immediate repair after OASIS. Since 2009, we have been routinely inviting all our patients with OASIS to the perineal clinic for postoperative follow-up. We scheduled the first visit before discharge from hospital and followed up with a second visit after three months. During both visits, patients underwent transperineal 4D ultrasound examination. We provided examination while at rest and during contraction; volumes were saved for further evaluation. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (58.7%) completed both exams and were included in the analysis. Residual external anal sphincter defect was found in 17.3% at the first visit versus 13.6% at the second (delayed) visit. We were not able to assess the sphincter in 9.9% at early versus none in the delayed examination. In 9.9%, the residual defect was not confirmed by the second examination, and in 4.9% the residual defect was missed by the first examination. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we have found that a 3 month scan yields a smaller number of defects than a scan before discharge.
References provided by Crossref.org
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc22024270
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20221031100404.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 221017s2022 ie f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $a 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2022.08.004 $2 doi
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)35964398
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a ie
- 100 1_
- $a Hubka, Petr $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine and Na Bulovce Faculty Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: petr.hubka@lf1.cuni.cz
- 245 10
- $a When to assess residual anal sphincter defect after OASI by ultrasound / $c P. Hubka, J. Dvorak, M. Lincova, J. Masata, A. Martan, K. Svabik
- 520 9_
- $a OBJECTIVES: Obstetrical anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) are complications of vaginal delivery. Unrepaired anal sphincter after delivery increases the risk of anal incontinence. The aim of our study is to search for residual defect after OASI repair by 4D introital ultrasound (US). We hypothesised that imaging prior to hospital discharge would show the same number of defects as assessment at 3 months. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of 138 patients with immediate repair after OASIS. Since 2009, we have been routinely inviting all our patients with OASIS to the perineal clinic for postoperative follow-up. We scheduled the first visit before discharge from hospital and followed up with a second visit after three months. During both visits, patients underwent transperineal 4D ultrasound examination. We provided examination while at rest and during contraction; volumes were saved for further evaluation. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients (58.7%) completed both exams and were included in the analysis. Residual external anal sphincter defect was found in 17.3% at the first visit versus 13.6% at the second (delayed) visit. We were not able to assess the sphincter in 9.9% at early versus none in the delayed examination. In 9.9%, the residual defect was not confirmed by the second examination, and in 4.9% the residual defect was missed by the first examination. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, we have found that a 3 month scan yields a smaller number of defects than a scan before discharge.
- 650 _2
- $a anální kanál $x diagnostické zobrazování $x zranění $7 D001003
- 650 _2
- $a vedení porodu $x škodlivé účinky $7 D036861
- 650 12
- $a fekální inkontinence $x diagnostické zobrazování $x etiologie $7 D005242
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 12
- $a komplikace porodu $7 D007744
- 650 _2
- $a perineum $x zranění $7 D010502
- 650 _2
- $a těhotenství $7 D011247
- 650 _2
- $a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
- 650 _2
- $a ultrasonografie $x metody $7 D014463
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Dvorak, Jan $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: jan.dvorak2@vfn.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Lincova, Marcela $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine and Na Bulovce Faculty Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: a.marcela.lincova@bulovka.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Masata, Jaromir $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: masata@volny.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Martan, Alois $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: alois.martan@lf1.cuni.cz
- 700 1_
- $a Svabik, Kamil $u Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. Electronic address: kamil@svabik.cz
- 773 0_
- $w MED00001632 $t European journal of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology $x 1872-7654 $g Roč. 277, č. - (2022), s. 8-11
- 856 41
- $u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35964398 $y Pubmed
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20221017 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20221031100402 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1854154 $s 1175560
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2022 $b 277 $c - $d 8-11 $e 20220810 $i 1872-7654 $m European journal of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive biology $n Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol $x MED00001632
- LZP __
- $a Pubmed-20221017