Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-01-2022 | Original Article

Preoperative level II/III MRI measures predicting long-term prolapse recurrence after native tissue repair

Authors: Payton Schmidt, Luyun Chen, John O. DeLancey, Carolyn W. Swenson

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 1/2022

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

To identify preoperative level II/III MRI measures associated with long-term recurrence after native tissue prolapse repair.

Methods

Women who previously participated in pelvic floor research involving MRI prior to undergoing primary native tissue prolapse repair were recruited to return for repeat examination and MRI. Recurrence was defined by POP-Q (Ba/Bp > 0 or C > –4), repeat surgery, or pessary use. Preoperative MR images were used to perform five level II/III measurements including a new levator plate (LP) shape analysis at rest and maximal Valsalva. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to evaluate LP shape variations. Principal component scores calculated for two independent shape variations were noted.

Results

Thirty-five women were included with a mean follow-up of 13.2 ± 3.3 years. Nineteen (54%) were in the success group. There were no statistical differences between success versus recurrence groups in demographic, clinical, or surgical characteristics. Women with recurrence had a larger preoperative resting levator hiatus [median 6.4 cm (IQR 5.7, 7.1) vs. 5.8 cm (IQR 5.3, 6.3), p = 0.03]. This measure was associated with increased odds of recurrence (OR 8.2, CI 1.4-48.9, p = 0.02). Using PCA, preoperative LP shape PC1 scores were different between success and recurrence groups (p = 0.02), with a more dorsally oriented LP shape associated with recurrence.

Conclusions

Larger preoperative levator hiatus at rest and a more dorsally oriented levator plate shape were associated with prolapse recurrence at long-term follow-up. For every 1 cm increase in preoperative resting levator hiatus, the odds of long-term prolapse recurrence increases 8-fold.

Available only for authorised users

Boyles SH, Weber AM, Meyn L. Procedures for pelvic organ prolapse in the United States, 1979-1997. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(1):108–15. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.101.CrossRefPubMed

Wu JM, Kawasaki A, Hundley AF, Dieter AA, Myers ER, Sung VW. Predicting the number of women who will undergo incontinence and prolapse surgery, 2010 to 2050. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(3):230 e231–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.046.CrossRef

Larson KA, Smith T, Berger MB, Abernethy M, Mead S, Fenner DE, et al. Long-term patient satisfaction with Michigan four-wall sacrospinous ligament suspension for prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(5):967–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182a7f0d5.CrossRefPubMed

Miedel A, Tegerstedt G, Morlin B, Hammarstrom M. A 5-year prospective follow-up study of vaginal surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(12):1593–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0702-z.CrossRefPubMed

Fialkow MF, Newton KM, Weiss NS. Incidence of recurrent pelvic organ prolapse 10 years following primary surgical management: a retrospective cohort study. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2008;19(11):1483–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-008-0678-8.CrossRefPubMed

Abdel-Fattah M, Familusi A, Fielding S, Ford J, Bhattacharya S. Primary and repeat surgical treatment for female pelvic organ prolapse and incontinence in parous women in the UK: a register linkage study. BMJ Open. 2011;1(2):e000206. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Olsen AL, Smith VJ, Bergstrom JO, Colling JC, Clark AL. Epidemiology of surgically managed pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(4):501–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00058-6.CrossRefPubMed

Nygaard I, Brubaker L, Zyczynski HM, Cundiff G, Richter H, Gantz M, et al. Long-term outcomes following abdominal sacrocolpopexy for pelvic organ prolapse. JAMA. 2013;309(19):2016–24. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.4919.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Friedman T, Eslick GD, Dietz HP. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3475-4.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Vergeldt TF, van Kuijk SM, Notten KJ, Kluivers KB, Weemhoff M. Anatomical cystocele recurrence: development and internal validation of a prediction model. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;127(2):341–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001272.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Weemhoff M, Shek KL, Dietz HP. Effects of age on levator function and morphometry of the levator hiatus in women with pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(9):1137–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1150-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Vaughan MH, Siddiqui NY, Newcomb LK, Weidner AC, Kawasaki A, Visco AG, et al. Surgical alteration of genital hiatus size and anatomic failure after vaginal vault suspension. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(6):1137–44. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000002593.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Berger MB, Kolenic GE, Fenner DE, Morgan DM, DeLancey JOL. Structural, functional, and symptomatic differences between women with rectocele versus cystocele and normal support. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(5):510 e511–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.033.CrossRef

14.

Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo 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.CrossRef

15.

Trowbridge ER, Fultz NH, Patel DA, DeLancey JO, Fenner DE. Distribution of pelvic organ support measures in a population-based sample of middle-aged, community-dwelling African American and white women in southeastern Michigan. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):548 e541–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.01.054.CrossRef

16.

Larson KA, Hsu Y, Chen L, Ashton-Miller JA, DeLancey JO. Magnetic resonance imaging-based three-dimensional model of anterior vaginal wall position at rest and maximal strain in women with and without prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21(9):1103–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-010-1161-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Hsu Y, Summers A, Hussain HK, Guire KE, Delancey JO. Levator plate angle in women with pelvic organ prolapse compared to women with normal support using dynamic MR imaging. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006;194(5):1427–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2006.01.055.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Huebner M, DeLancey JOL. Levels of pelvic floor support: what do they look like on magnetic resonance imaging? Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(9):1593–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-03986-x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Reiner CS, Williamson T, Winklehner T, Lisse S, Fink D, DeLancey JOL, et al. The 3D pelvic inclination correction system (PICS): a universally applicable coordinate system for isovolumetric imaging measurements, tested in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2017;59:28–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compmedimag.2017.05.005.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Rasband W. ImageJ. Bethesda: National Institute of Mental Health; 1997.

21.

Berger MB, Morgan DM, DeLancey JO. Levator ani defect scores and pelvic organ prolapse: is there a threshold effect? Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(10):1375–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2388-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2100-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Hotelling H. Analysis of complex statistical variables into principal components. J Educ Psychol. 1933;24(6):417–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0071325.CrossRef

24.

DeLancey JO, Morgan DM, Fenner DE, Kearney R, Guire K, Miller JM, et al. Comparison of levator ani muscle defects and function in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109(2 Pt 1):295–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000250901.57095.ba.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Bradley MS, Askew AL, Vaughan MH, Kawasaki A, Visco AG. Robotic-assisted sacrocolpopexy: early postoperative outcomes after surgical reduction of enlarged genital hiatus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(5):514 e511–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2018.01.046.CrossRef

26.

Vakili B, Zheng YT, Loesch H, Echols KT, Franco N, Chesson RR. Levator contraction strength and genital hiatus as risk factors for recurrent pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(5):1592–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.11.022.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Medina CA, Candiotti K, Takacs P. Wide genital hiatus is a risk factor for recurrence following anterior vaginal repair. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008;101(2):184–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.11.008.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Vergeldt TF, Notten KJ, Weemhoff M, van Kuijk SM, Mulder FE, Beets-Tan RG, et al. Levator hiatal area as a risk factor for cystocele recurrence after surgery: a prospective study. BJOG. 2015;122(8):1130–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13340.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Rodrigo N, Wong V, Shek KL, Martin A, Dietz HP. The use of 3-dimensional ultrasound of the pelvic floor to predict recurrence risk after pelvic reconstructive surgery. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;54(3):206–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12171.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Wyman AM, Rodrigues AA Jr, Hahn L, Greene KA, Bassaly R, Hart S, et al. Estimated levator ani subtended volume: a novel assay for predicting surgical failure after uterosacral ligament suspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(5):611 e611–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.11.005.CrossRef

31.

Swenson CW, Masteling M, DeLancey JO, Nandikanti L, Schmidt P, Chen L. Aging effects on pelvic floor support: a pilot study comparing young versus older nulliparous women. Int Urogynecol J. 2020;31(3):535–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-019-04063-z.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Sammarco AG, Nandikanti L, Kobernik EK, Xie B, Jankowski A, Swenson CW, et al. Interactions among pelvic organ protrusion, levator ani descent, and hiatal enlargement in women with and without prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(5):614 e611–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.07.007.CrossRef

33.

Andrew BP, Shek KL, Chantarasorn V, Dietz HP. Enlargement of the levator hiatus in female pelvic organ prolapse: cause or effect? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;53(1):74–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12026.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Preoperative level II/III MRI measures predicting long-term prolapse recurrence after native tissue repair
Authors: Payton Schmidt
Luyun Chen
John O. DeLancey
Carolyn W. Swenson
Publication date: 01-01-2022
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 1/2022
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04854-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Preoperative level II/III MRI measures predicting long-term prolapse recurrence after native tissue repair

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Letter to “Prospective analysis of transvaginal mesh hysteropexy in the treatment of uterine prolapse”

Pelvic organ prolapse and Japanese lifestyle: prevalence and risk factors in Japan

A commentary on “Microablative radiofrequency versus pelvic floor muscle training for stress urinary incontinence: a randomized controlled trial”

Pelvic organ prolapse surgery and overactive bladder symptoms—a population-based cohort (FINPOP)

Management of advanced prolapse including a bowel obstruction: expanding the role of transvaginal surgery

Surgical and Pre-Operative Considerations for Managing Pelvic Organ Prolapse in a Patient with a Müllerian Duct Anomaly