MRI diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse compared with clinical examination

Harpreet K. Pannu, John C. Scatarige, John Eng

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Rationale and Objectives: The aims of this study were to determine agreement between clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (rectal contrast and noncontrast MRI) for pelvic organ prolapse using both the pubococcygeal line (PCL) and the midpubic line (MPL) and to assess the relationship between measurements performed relative to each line. Materials and Methods: Dynamic MRI exams in 88 women (with rectal contrast, n = 39; noncontrast, n = 49) were evaluated, followed by review of clinical exam notes. Agreement between clinical exam and MRI and the difference between PCL and MPL measurements were evaluated. Results: Agreement of rectal contrast MRI with clinical exam was 79% for PCL and 85% for MPL (P = .17) for cystoceles, 50% for PCL and 59% for MPL (P = .20) for vaginal prolapse, 56% for PCL for enteroceles, and 61% for rectoceles. Agreement of noncontrast MRI with clinical exam was 67% for PCL and 78% for MPL (P = .19) for cystoceles, 58% for PCL and 71% for MPL (P = .10) for vaginal prolapse, 65% for enteroceles, and 40% for rectoceles. The average difference between the PCL and the MPL was 3.12 ± 0.24 cm at the bladder base and 4.88 ± 0.37 cm at the vaginal apex. Conclusions: Agreement of MRI with clinical exam was highest for cystoceles. There was no significant difference in agreement using the MPL or PCL, suggesting that either line can be used on MRI. The average differences between the PCL and MPL at the bladder base and vaginal apex were approximately 3 and 5 cm, respectively.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1245-1251
Number of pages7
JournalAcademic Radiology
Volume18
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2011

Fingerprint

Pelvic Organ Prolapse
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Cystocele
Uterine Prolapse
Hernia
Urinary Bladder

Keywords

  • Gynecology
  • Magnetic resonance imaging
  • Pelvic organ prolapse

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

MRI diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse compared with clinical examination. / Pannu, Harpreet K.; Scatarige, John C.; Eng, John.

In: Academic Radiology, Vol. 18, No. 10, 10.2011, p. 1245-1251.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pannu, Harpreet K. ; Scatarige, John C. ; Eng, John. / MRI diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse compared with clinical examination. In: Academic Radiology. 2011 ; Vol. 18, No. 10. pp. 1245-1251.
@article{4debe782836645bd8ecb6cf83f8be1b2,
title = "MRI diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse compared with clinical examination",
abstract = "Rationale and Objectives: The aims of this study were to determine agreement between clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (rectal contrast and noncontrast MRI) for pelvic organ prolapse using both the pubococcygeal line (PCL) and the midpubic line (MPL) and to assess the relationship between measurements performed relative to each line. Materials and Methods: Dynamic MRI exams in 88 women (with rectal contrast, n = 39; noncontrast, n = 49) were evaluated, followed by review of clinical exam notes. Agreement between clinical exam and MRI and the difference between PCL and MPL measurements were evaluated. Results: Agreement of rectal contrast MRI with clinical exam was 79{\%} for PCL and 85{\%} for MPL (P = .17) for cystoceles, 50{\%} for PCL and 59{\%} for MPL (P = .20) for vaginal prolapse, 56{\%} for PCL for enteroceles, and 61{\%} for rectoceles. Agreement of noncontrast MRI with clinical exam was 67{\%} for PCL and 78{\%} for MPL (P = .19) for cystoceles, 58{\%} for PCL and 71{\%} for MPL (P = .10) for vaginal prolapse, 65{\%} for enteroceles, and 40{\%} for rectoceles. The average difference between the PCL and the MPL was 3.12 ± 0.24 cm at the bladder base and 4.88 ± 0.37 cm at the vaginal apex. Conclusions: Agreement of MRI with clinical exam was highest for cystoceles. There was no significant difference in agreement using the MPL or PCL, suggesting that either line can be used on MRI. The average differences between the PCL and MPL at the bladder base and vaginal apex were approximately 3 and 5 cm, respectively.",
keywords = "Gynecology, Magnetic resonance imaging, Pelvic organ prolapse",
author = "Pannu, {Harpreet K.} and Scatarige, {John C.} and John Eng",
year = "2011",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.acra.2011.05.010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "1245--1251",
journal = "Academic Radiology",
issn = "1076-6332",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - MRI diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse compared with clinical examination

AU - Pannu, Harpreet K.

AU - Scatarige, John C.

AU - Eng, John

PY - 2011/10

Y1 - 2011/10

N2 - Rationale and Objectives: The aims of this study were to determine agreement between clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (rectal contrast and noncontrast MRI) for pelvic organ prolapse using both the pubococcygeal line (PCL) and the midpubic line (MPL) and to assess the relationship between measurements performed relative to each line. Materials and Methods: Dynamic MRI exams in 88 women (with rectal contrast, n = 39; noncontrast, n = 49) were evaluated, followed by review of clinical exam notes. Agreement between clinical exam and MRI and the difference between PCL and MPL measurements were evaluated. Results: Agreement of rectal contrast MRI with clinical exam was 79% for PCL and 85% for MPL (P = .17) for cystoceles, 50% for PCL and 59% for MPL (P = .20) for vaginal prolapse, 56% for PCL for enteroceles, and 61% for rectoceles. Agreement of noncontrast MRI with clinical exam was 67% for PCL and 78% for MPL (P = .19) for cystoceles, 58% for PCL and 71% for MPL (P = .10) for vaginal prolapse, 65% for enteroceles, and 40% for rectoceles. The average difference between the PCL and the MPL was 3.12 ± 0.24 cm at the bladder base and 4.88 ± 0.37 cm at the vaginal apex. Conclusions: Agreement of MRI with clinical exam was highest for cystoceles. There was no significant difference in agreement using the MPL or PCL, suggesting that either line can be used on MRI. The average differences between the PCL and MPL at the bladder base and vaginal apex were approximately 3 and 5 cm, respectively.

AB - Rationale and Objectives: The aims of this study were to determine agreement between clinical examination and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (rectal contrast and noncontrast MRI) for pelvic organ prolapse using both the pubococcygeal line (PCL) and the midpubic line (MPL) and to assess the relationship between measurements performed relative to each line. Materials and Methods: Dynamic MRI exams in 88 women (with rectal contrast, n = 39; noncontrast, n = 49) were evaluated, followed by review of clinical exam notes. Agreement between clinical exam and MRI and the difference between PCL and MPL measurements were evaluated. Results: Agreement of rectal contrast MRI with clinical exam was 79% for PCL and 85% for MPL (P = .17) for cystoceles, 50% for PCL and 59% for MPL (P = .20) for vaginal prolapse, 56% for PCL for enteroceles, and 61% for rectoceles. Agreement of noncontrast MRI with clinical exam was 67% for PCL and 78% for MPL (P = .19) for cystoceles, 58% for PCL and 71% for MPL (P = .10) for vaginal prolapse, 65% for enteroceles, and 40% for rectoceles. The average difference between the PCL and the MPL was 3.12 ± 0.24 cm at the bladder base and 4.88 ± 0.37 cm at the vaginal apex. Conclusions: Agreement of MRI with clinical exam was highest for cystoceles. There was no significant difference in agreement using the MPL or PCL, suggesting that either line can be used on MRI. The average differences between the PCL and MPL at the bladder base and vaginal apex were approximately 3 and 5 cm, respectively.

KW - Gynecology

KW - Magnetic resonance imaging

KW - Pelvic organ prolapse

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052382763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052382763&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.acra.2011.05.010

DO - 10.1016/j.acra.2011.05.010

M3 - Article

C2 - 21795069

AN - SCOPUS:80052382763

VL - 18

SP - 1245

EP - 1251

JO - Academic Radiology

JF - Academic Radiology

SN - 1076-6332

IS - 10

ER -