Predictive Model for the Diagnosis of Uterine Prolapse Based on Transperineal Ultrasound.

We want to describe a model that allows the use of transperineal ultrasound to define the probability of experiencing uterine prolapse (UP). This was a prospective observational study involving 107 patients with UP or cervical elongation (CE) without UP. The ultrasound study was performed using transperineal ultrasound and evaluated the differences in the pubis−uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver. We generated different multivariate binary logistic regression models using nonautomated methods to predict UP, including the difference in the pubis−uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver. The parameters were added progressively according to their simplicity of use and their predictive capacity for identifying UP. We used two binary logistic regression models to predict UP. Model 1 was based on the difference in the pubis−uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver and the age of the patient [AUC: 0.967 (95% CI, 0.939−0.995; p < 0.0005)]. Model 2 used the difference in the pubis−uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver, age, avulsion and ballooning (AUC: 0.971 (95% CI, 0.945−0.997; p < 0.0005)). In conclusion, the model based on the difference in the pubis−uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver and the age of the patient could predict 96.7% of patients with UP.

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

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.

Differential diagnosis of middle compartment pelvic organ prolapse with transperineal ultrasound.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to identify the best parameter (pubis-cervix measurement, pubis-uterine fundus measurement or pubis-pouch of Douglas measurement) on transperineal ultrasound, based on the difference between measurements taken at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver, for presurgical differential diagnosis between uterine prolapse (UP) and cervical elongation (CE) without UP. METHODS: A prospective observational study of 60 consecutively recruited patients who underwent corrective surgery of the middle compartment (UP or CE without UP). A transperineal ultrasound was performed, and the descent of the pelvic organ was measured in relation to the posteroinferior margin of the pubis in the midsagittal plane, referencing the uterine fundus, pouch of Douglas and the cervix at rest and with the Valsalva test. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for the three evaluated measures, based on the difference between rest and Valsalva, for the diagnosis of UP. For the pubis-cervix distance, an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.59 was obtained; for the pubis-uterine fundus distance, the AUC was 0.81; and for the pubis-pouch of Douglas distance, the AUC was 0.69. Based on the best AUC (the difference in the pubis-uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver), a cut-off point of 15 mm was established for the diagnosis of UP (sensitivity: 75%; specificity: 95%; positive predictive value: 86%; and negative predictive value: 89%). CONCLUSION: A difference of ≥15 mm in the pubis-uterine fundus distance at rest and with the Valsalva maneuver is useful for differentiating UP from CE without UP by ultrasound.

The correlation between the type of forceps application and the rate of levator ani muscle avulsion: A prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The association between the use of forceps and levator ani muscle (LAM) avulsion seems to be clear-cut. However, whether the lesion is due to the mechanical trauma yielded by the instrument or to the intrinsic complexity of this type of delivery, is yet to be determined. This study aims at determining the difference in LAM avulsion rate between Kielland rotational forceps and non-rotational forceps. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study with 94 nulliparous women with forceps-assisted deliveries (FD) between July 2015 and January 2016. 3D-TpUS was performed 6 months after every patient's delivery, during which LAM avulsion, and levator hiatus area and anteroposterior and transverse diameters were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 89 nulliparous were studied, comprising 27 rotational-FD, and 62 non-rotational-FD. No differences in obstetric, intrapartum, or neonatal characteristics were observed between study groups. There were no statistically significant differences in the presence of avulsion between cases of rotational forceps (44.4% vs 35.5%, OR: 1.5 [0.6-3.6]), correction of asinclitism of the fetal head (34.4% vs. 40.4% OR: 0.8 [0.3-1.9]) or station (midforceps: 32.8% vs low forceps: 50.0% OR: 2.0 [0.8-5.1]). CONCLUSIONS: We have not observed differences in the LAM-avulsion rate between rotational forceps and non-rotational forceps performed by highly experienced personnel in instrumental deliveries.