Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Appearance of levator ani muscle subdivision defects on level III vaginal support structures in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse: an MRI study

L. Horcicka, M. Krcmar, M. Nemec, L. Hympanova, J. Feyereisl, L. Krofta

. 2023 ; 34 (8) : 1971-1982. [pub] 20230429

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article

Grant support
Grant Agency of Charles University research project Cooperatio (project no.207035) lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy

E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 2010-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Injury of the levator ani muscle (LAM) is a significant risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The puborectalis (PRM) and pubovisceral (PVM) subdivisions are level III vaginal support structures. The null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference in patterns of LAM subdivisions in healthy nulliparous women. Secondarily, we evaluated the presence of different LAM injury in a POP-symptomatic cohort. METHODS: This retrospective magnetic resonance imaging study included: 64 nulligravidae without any pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) and 526 women of various parity with symptomatic POP. Primary outcome was PVM and PRM morphology on the axial planes: the attachment site on the pubic bone, and the visible separation/border between the PVM and PRM. The attachment was scored as "normal" or "abnormal". The "abnormal" attachment was divided in two types: "type I"-loss of the muscle substance, but preservation of the overall muscle architecture-and "type II"-muscle detachment from the pubic bone. RESULTS: The puboanal muscle (PAM) subdivision was evaluated as a representative part of the PVM. The PAM and PRM attachments and separation were distinguished in all asymptomatic nulliparae. PAM and PRM attachments did not significantly differ. POP group characteristics were parity 1.9 ± 0.8, instrumental delivery 5.6%, hysterectomy or POP surgery 60%, all Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stages, LAM defect 77.6% (PRM: 77.1%; PAM: 51.3%). Type I injuries were more frequent (PRM 54.7%; PAM 53.9%) compared with type II (PRM 29.4%; PAM 42.1%). CONCLUSIONS: A LAM defect was present in 77.6% of women with symptomatic POP. In PRM and PAM subdivisions type I injury was more frequent than type II.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23016759
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20231026105554.0
007      
ta
008      
231013s2023 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00192-023-05533-1 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37119270
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Horcicka, L $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruska 2411/87, 100 00, Prague, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Appearance of levator ani muscle subdivision defects on level III vaginal support structures in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse: an MRI study / $c L. Horcicka, M. Krcmar, M. Nemec, L. Hympanova, J. Feyereisl, L. Krofta
520    9_
$a INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Injury of the levator ani muscle (LAM) is a significant risk factor for pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The puborectalis (PRM) and pubovisceral (PVM) subdivisions are level III vaginal support structures. The null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference in patterns of LAM subdivisions in healthy nulliparous women. Secondarily, we evaluated the presence of different LAM injury in a POP-symptomatic cohort. METHODS: This retrospective magnetic resonance imaging study included: 64 nulligravidae without any pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) and 526 women of various parity with symptomatic POP. Primary outcome was PVM and PRM morphology on the axial planes: the attachment site on the pubic bone, and the visible separation/border between the PVM and PRM. The attachment was scored as "normal" or "abnormal". The "abnormal" attachment was divided in two types: "type I"-loss of the muscle substance, but preservation of the overall muscle architecture-and "type II"-muscle detachment from the pubic bone. RESULTS: The puboanal muscle (PAM) subdivision was evaluated as a representative part of the PVM. The PAM and PRM attachments and separation were distinguished in all asymptomatic nulliparae. PAM and PRM attachments did not significantly differ. POP group characteristics were parity 1.9 ± 0.8, instrumental delivery 5.6%, hysterectomy or POP surgery 60%, all Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification (POP-Q) stages, LAM defect 77.6% (PRM: 77.1%; PAM: 51.3%). Type I injuries were more frequent (PRM 54.7%; PAM 53.9%) compared with type II (PRM 29.4%; PAM 42.1%). CONCLUSIONS: A LAM defect was present in 77.6% of women with symptomatic POP. In PRM and PAM subdivisions type I injury was more frequent than type II.
650    _2
$a těhotenství $7 D011247
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a retrospektivní studie $7 D012189
650    12
$a vagina $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D014621
650    12
$a prolaps pánevních orgánů $x diagnostické zobrazování $x etiologie $7 D056887
650    _2
$a pánevní dno $x zranění $7 D017773
650    _2
$a magnetická rezonanční tomografie $7 D008279
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Krcmar, M $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruska 2411/87, 100 00, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Podolské nábřeží 157, 147 00, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Nemec, M $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruska 2411/87, 100 00, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Hympanova, L $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruska 2411/87, 100 00, Prague, Czech Republic. lucie.hympanova@upmd.eu $u Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Podolské nábřeží 157, 147 00, Prague, Czech Republic. lucie.hympanova@upmd.eu
700    1_
$a Feyereisl, J $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruska 2411/87, 100 00, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Podolské nábřeží 157, 147 00, Prague, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Krofta, L $u Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Ruska 2411/87, 100 00, Prague, Czech Republic $u Institute for the Care of Mother and Child, Podolské nábřeží 157, 147 00, Prague, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00002395 $t International urogynecology journal $x 1433-3023 $g Roč. 34, č. 8 (2023), s. 1971-1982
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37119270 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20231013 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20231026105549 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2000343 $s 1203121
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 34 $c 8 $d 1971-1982 $e 20230429 $i 1433-3023 $m International urogynecology journal $n Int. urogynecol. j. (Print) $x MED00002395
GRA    __
$a Grant Agency of Charles University research project Cooperatio (project no.207035) $p lékařská fakulta Univerzity Karlovy
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20231013

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...