medigraphic.com
Organo Oficial de la Sociedad Mexicana de Urología

2020, Number 6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Urol 2020; 80 (6)

Diagnostic performance of radiologic methods in genital prolapse: A systematic review/meta-analysis

Aguirre-Martínez MA, García-Perdomo HA

Language: Spanish
References: 21
Page: 1-21
PDF size: 502.22 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To determine the diagnostic yield of radiologic studies (dynamic magnetic resonance imaging, and 2D/3D ultrasound), compared with the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) classification system, for identifying genital prolapse.
Methods: Clinical experiments, cross-sectional studies, case-control studies, and cohort studies were included to evaluate dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and 2D/3D ultrasound as the diagnostic tests, and the POP-Q classification system as the reference standard. A search strategy was carried out, up to the present date, in each of the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and LILACS, as well as in the grey literature. The data were then extracted and the risk for bias was evaluated through the QUADAS-2 tool, resulting in the present meta-analysis.
Results: Once the information from the 2,227 studies evaluated was filtered, four articles were selected that met the inclusion criteria, two of which were included in the meta-analysis. From the data reported, we found a moderate- to-high correlation between magnetic resonance imaging and the POP-Q, for quantifying genital prolapse, in relation to the anterior and middle compartment measurements, with the following effect sizes: 0.60 (95% CI 0.18 to 1.03) for the pubococcygeal line; 0.63 (95% CI 0.28 to 0.98) for the H line; and 0.70 (95% CI 0.52 to 0.88) for the midpubic line.
Conclusions: Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and transperineal 2D/3D ultrasound can be used as diagnostic methods for genital organ prolapse, especially anterior compartment prolapse.


REFERENCES

  1. Peter Dietz H, Guzmán Rojas R. Diagnóstico y manejo del prolapso de órganos pélvicos, presente y futuro. Revista Médica Clínica Las Condes. 2013;24(2):210–7. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0716-8640(13)70152-4

  2. Yuk J, Lee JH, Hur J, Shin J. The prevalence and treatment pattern of clinically diagnosed pelvic organ prolapse : a Korean National Health Insurance study 2009 – 2015. Scientific Reports. 2018;(July 2017):4–9. doi: https://doi. org/10.1038/s41598-018-19692-5

  3. Dheresa M, Worku A, Oljira L, Mengiste B, Assefa N. One in five women suffer from pelvic floor disorders in Kersa district Eastern Ethiopia : a community-based study. 2018;1–8.

  4. Persu C, Chapple CR, Cauni V, Gutue S, Geavlete P. Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification System (POP-Q) - a new era in pelvic prolapse staging. Journal of medicine and life. 2011;4(1):75–81.

  5. Cabo; PPFFAEC. Estudio dinamico de Movilidad. Revista de imagenologia. 2018;21.

  6. Valencia JA, Quinta U, Sol E, Lote MB, Valencia JA. Evaluación del suelo pélvico mediante ecografía introital. revista peruana de ginecologia y obstetricia. 2016;

  7. Lopez AG. Prolapso de órganos pélvicos. IATREIA. 2002;15(1):56–67.

  8. Janina REVV a; JDGR b; F, Rasury PM c; FYR. Diagnostico ginecológico, evaluación de protocolos mediante ecografía de contraste Endo vaginal transpireneal del piso pélvico. Revista Científica De La Investigación Y El Conocimiento. 2019;78(5):291–309. doi: https://doi.org/10.26820/recimundo/3.(4). diciembre.2019.291-309

  9. Benítez Martín D, Salgado - C, Benítez Martín A. Clases de Residentes año 2015 Valoración ecográfica del suelo pélvico. 2015;1–13.

  10. Harmanli O. POP-Q 2.0: Its time has come! International Urogynecology Journal. 2014;25(4):447–9. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s00192-013-2252-2

  11. Broekhuis SR, Kluivers KB, Hendriks JCM, Fütterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Vierhout ME. POP-Q, dynamic MR imaging, and perineal ultrasonography: Do they agree in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse? International Urogynecology Journal. 2009;20(5):541–9. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s00192-009-0821-1

  12. Lakeman MME, Zijta FM, Peringa J, Nederveen AJ, Stoker J, Roovers JPWR. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging to quantify pelvic organ prolapse: Reliability of assessment and correlation with clinical findings and pelvic floor symptoms. International Urogynecology Journal. 2012;23(11):1547–54. doi: https://doi. org/10.1007/s00192-012-1772-5

  13. Dancz CE, Werth L, Sun V, Lee S, Walker D, Özel B. Comparison of the POP-Q examination, transvaginal ultrasound, and direct anatomic measurement of cervical length. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. 2014;25(4):457–64. doi: https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2255-z

  14. Dietz HP, Kamisan Atan I, Salita A. Association between ICS POP-Q coordinates and translabial ultrasound findings: Implications for definition of ‘normal pelvic organ support’. Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2016;47(3):363–8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14872

  15. Azab IA, Nasef MA, Ibrahim AM. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging; Reliability of assessment and correlation with clinical findings of pelvic organ prolapse. Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 2014;45(3):1003–10. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejrnm.2014.03.011

  16. Sammarco AG, Jankowski A, Swenson CW, Delancey JO. Comparison of midsagittal cross sectional areas above and below the levators in women with and without prolapse. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2017;216(3):S563. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.12.156

  17. Murad-Regadas. A novel three-dimensional dynamic anorectal ultrasonography technique for the assessment of perineal descent , compared with defaecography. Surgical Endoscopy. 2011;14:740–7. doi: https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2011.02729.x

  18. Kluivers KB, Hendriks JCM, Shek C, Dietz HP. Pelvic organ prolapse symptoms in relation to POPQ , ordinal stages and ultrasound prolapse assessment. International Urogynecology Journal and Pelvic Floor Dysfunction. 2008;1299–302. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00192-008-0634-7

  19. Huang W, Yang S, Yang J. Outcomes of Green Type III Cystocele. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 2015;2279–85. doi: https://doi. org/10.7863/ultra.14.11066

  20. Ginath S, Garely AD, Luchs JS, Ascher-walsh CJ, Condrea A, Brodman ML, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of abdominal versus vaginal prolapse surgery with mesh. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;1569–76. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00192-012-1783-2

  21. Novellas S, Mondot L, Bafghi A, Fournol M, Baudin G, Coco L, et al. Évaluation de deux systèmes de cotation des prolapsus pelviens en IRM dynamique. Journal de Radiologie. 2009;90(11 C1):1717–24. doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/S0221-0363(09)73270-6




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com