Top

Published in:

Open Access 07-10-2021 | Ultrasound | Original Article

Interobserver variability of ultrasound measurements for the differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse and cervical elongation without uterine prolapse

Authors: José Antonio García-Mejido, Zenaida Ramos Vega, Alberto Armijo Sánchez, Ana Fernández-Palacín, Carlota Borrero Fernández, José Antonio Sainz Bueno

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 10/2022

Abstract

Objectives

Our study aims to determine the interobserver variability of different ultrasound measurements (pubis-cervix distance, pubis-uterine fundus distance, and pubis-Douglascul-de-sac distance) previously analyzed for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse (UP) and cervical elongation CE without UP.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective observational study with 40 patients scheduled to undergo surgical correction of UP and CE without UP. All patients underwent pelvic floor ultrasound examination by an examiner (E1) who acquired ultrasound images. Using these images, E1 measured the distances for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP, and these distances were compared with those measured by the other examiner (E2). Values were analyzed by calculating ICCs with 95% CIs.

Results

For UP, excellent reliability was obtained for all measurements except the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was moderate (ICC 0.596; p = 0.028) and for the difference between the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver, which was good (ICC 0.691; p < 0.0005). For CE without UP, interobserver reliability was excellent for all measurements analyzed except the pubis-cervix measurement during the Valsalva maneuver, which was moderate (ICC 0.535; p = 0.052) and for the pubis-Douglascul-de-sac measurement at rest, which was good (ICC 0.768; p < 0.0005).

Conclusions

There is excellent interobserver reliability in measurements of the difference in the distance from the pubic symphysis to the uterine fundus at rest and during the Valsalva maneuver for both UP and CE without UP, which are used for the ultrasound differential diagnosis of UP and CE without UP.

Oliphant SS, Jones KA, Wang L, Bunker CH, Lowder JL. Trends over time with commonly performed obstetric and gynecologic inpatient procedures. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(4):926–31.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Lavelle RS, Christie AL, Alhalabi F, Zimmern PE. Risk of prolapse recurrence after native tissue anterior vaginal suspension procedure with intermediate to long-term follow-up. J Urol. 2016;195:1014–20.CrossRef

Whiteside JL, Weber AM, Meyn LA, Walters MD. Risk factors for prolapse recurrence after vaginal repair. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(5):1533–8.CrossRef

Dietz HP, Lekskulchai O. Ultrasound assessment of prolapse: the relationship between prolapse severity and symptoms. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2007;29:688–91.CrossRef

Shek KL, Dietz HP. What is abnormal uterine descent on translabial ultrasound? Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(12):1783–7.CrossRef

Eisenberg VH, Chantarasorn V, Shek KL, Dietz HP. Does levator ani injury affect cystocele type? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010;36(5):618–23.CrossRef

Green TH Jr. Urinary stress incontinence: differential diagnosis, pathophysiology, and management. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975;122(3):368–400.CrossRef

Chantarasorn V, Dietz HP. Diagnosis of cystocele type by clinical examination and pelvic floor ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;39(6):710–4.CrossRef

10.

Dietz HP, Steensma AB. Posterior compartment prolapse on two-dimensional and three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound: the distinction between true rectocele, perineal hypermotility and enterocele. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26(1):73–7.CrossRef

11.

García-Mejido JA, Ramos-Vega Z, Armijo-Sánchez A, Fernández-Palacín A, García-Jimenez R, Sainz JA. Differential diagnosis of middle compartment pelvic organ prolapse with transperineal ultrasound. Int Urogynecol J. 2021;23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-020-04646-1.

12.

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;175:10–7.CrossRef

13.

Abrams P, Cardozo L, Fall M, Griffiths D, Rosier P, Ulmsten U, et al. The standardisation of terminology of lower urinary tract function: report from the standardisation sub-committee of the International Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn. 2002;21:167–78.CrossRef

14.

García-Mejido JA, Bonomi-Barby MJ, Armijo-Sanchez A, Borrero-Fernández C, Castro-Portillo L, Vargas-Broquetas M, Sainz JA. Methodology for the transperineal ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor. Clin Invest Ginecol Obstet. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gine.2020.09.008.

15.

Dietz H. Ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor. Part 1: two-dimensional aspects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:80–92.CrossRef

16.

Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.CrossRef

17.

García-Mejido JA, Fernández-Palacín A, Bonomi-Barby MJ, De la Fuente VP, Iglesias E, Sainz JA. Online learning for 3D/4D transperineal ultrasound of the pelvic floor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(16):2805–11.CrossRef

18.

Van Veelen GA, Schweitzer KJ, Van der Vaart CH. Reliability of pelvic floor measurements on three- and four-dimensional ultrasound during and after first pregnancy: implications for training. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;42:590–5.CrossRef

19.

Braekken IH, Majida M, Engh ME, et al. Test–retest reliability of pelvic floor muscle contraction measured by 4D ultrasound. Neurourol Urodyn. 2009;28:68–73.CrossRef

20.

Majida M, Braekken IH, Umek W, et al. Interobserver repeatability of three- and four-dimensional transperineal ultrasound assessment of pelvic floor muscle anatomy and function. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:567–73.CrossRef

21.

Siafarikas F, Staer-Jensen J, Braekken IH, et al. Learning process for performing and analyzing 3D/4D 615 transperineal ultrasound imaging and interobserver reliability study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013;41:312.CrossRef

22.

Braekken IH, Majida M, Ellstrøm-Engh M, et al. Test–retest and intra-observer repeatability of two-, three- and four-dimensional perineal ultrasound of pelvic floor muscle anatomy and function. Int Urogynecol J. 2008;19:227–35.CrossRef

23.

Dietz HP, Shek C, Clarke B. Biometry of the pubovisceral muscle and levator hiatus by three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25:580–5.CrossRef

24.

Lone F, Sultan AH, Stankiewicz A, Thakar R. Interobserver agreement of multicompartment ultrasound in the assessment of pelvic floor anatomy. Br J Radiol. 2016;89(1059):20150704. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Kobak WH, Rosenberger K, Walters MD. Interobserver variation in the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 1996;7(3):121–4.CrossRef

26.

Dietz HP, Rojas RG, Shek KL. Postprocessing of pelvic floor ultrasound data: how repeatable is it? Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;54(6):553–7.CrossRef

Title: Interobserver variability of ultrasound measurements for the differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse and cervical elongation without uterine prolapse
Authors: José Antonio García-Mejido
Zenaida Ramos Vega
Alberto Armijo Sánchez
Ana Fernández-Palacín
Carlota Borrero Fernández
José Antonio Sainz Bueno
Publication date: 07-10-2021
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Keywords: Ultrasound
Uterine Prolapse
Ultrasound
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 10/2022
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-021-04980-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Interobserver variability of ultrasound measurements for the differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse and cervical elongation without uterine prolapse

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2022

2D pelvic floor ultrasound imaging in identifying levator ani muscle trauma agrees highly with 4D ultrasound imaging

Comparing the efficacy of the Knack maneuver on pelvic floor muscle function and urinary symptoms using different teaching methods: a prospective, nonrandomized study

Pelvic inclination correction system for magnetic resonance imaging analysis of pelvic organ prolapse in upright position

International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training

Letter to the editor: Hysteropreservation versus hysterectomy in uterine prolapse surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

International Urogynecology Consultation: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROs) use in the evaluation of patients with pelvic organ prolapse