Giá trị chẩn đoán của siêu âm sàn chậu trong chẩn đoán sa tạng chậu: một đánh giá hệ thống

International Urogynecology Journal - Tập 31 - Trang 15-33 - 2019
Yuanjing Gao1, Zhiwei Zhao2, Yanlin Yang1, Meiqin Zhang1, Jiang Wu3, Yali Miao1
1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children of MOE, West China Second University Hospital, West China Campus, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
2West China School of Basic Medical Sciences & Forensic Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
3Deep Underground Space Medical Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

Tóm tắt

Sa tạng chậu (POP) là một tình trạng y tế phổ biến trên toàn thế giới. Ngoài việc kiểm tra lâm sàng, các chuyên gia ngày càng chú trọng đến siêu âm trong việc chẩn đoán POP do chi phí thấp và khả năng hình ảnh động. Mục tiêu của bài báo này là cung cấp một cái nhìn tổng quan về các phương pháp siêu âm sàn chậu trong chẩn đoán POP, lĩnh vực còn thiếu sót cho đến nay. Chúng tôi đã bao gồm các tài liệu gốc so sánh kết quả của hệ thống Định lượng Sa tạng chậu và siêu âm, được xuất bản từ năm 2008 đến hiện tại bằng tiếng Anh, sử dụng các cơ sở dữ liệu điện tử (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PUBMED). Tất cả các giai đoạn của quy trình đánh giá đều được thực hiện song song bởi hai người đánh giá. Mười lăm bài báo đã được bao gồm. Chúng tôi nhận thấy rằng các phương pháp hiện tại có những lợi thế và hạn chế. Các phương pháp chính là đo các thông số liên quan đến lỗ mở cơ nâng và khoảng cách giữa điểm thấp nhất của các tạng chậu và các đường tham chiếu trong khi thực hiện động tác Valsalva, co thắt và khi nghỉ ngơi. Siêu âm sàn chậu có giá trị trong việc chẩn đoán POP, nhưng gặp khó khăn về độ chính xác so với kiểm tra lâm sàng. Từ các nghiên cứu hiện có, chúng tôi nhận thấy rằng sự khác biệt trong dữ liệu cơ sở như cân nặng, chiều cao, chủng tộc, v.v., có thể ảnh hưởng đến những ngưỡng của các thông số nêu trên. Cần có thêm nghiên cứu để tìm ra một ngưỡng phù hợp cho mỗi thông số, ngay cả khi cần phải xác định các giá trị nhóm cho mọi thông số tùy theo các tình huống khác nhau.

Từ khóa

#sa tạng chậu #siêu âm sàn chậu #chẩn đoán #đánh giá hệ thống

Tài liệu tham khảo

Haylen BT, Maher CF, Barber MD, Camargo S, Dandolu V, Digesu A, et al. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(4):655–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3003-y. Cooper J, Annappa M, Dracocardos D, Cooper W, Muller S, Mallen C. Prevalence of genital prolapse symptoms in primary care: a cross-sectional survey. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(4):505–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-014-2556-x. Smith FJ, Holman CD, Moorin RE, Tsokos N. Lifetime risk of undergoing surgery for pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1096–100. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181f73729. Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS, Redden DT, Burgio KL, Richter HE, et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;123(1):141–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000000057. Yuk JS, Lee JH, Hur JY, Shin JH. The prevalence and treatment pattern of clinically diagnosed pelvic organ prolapse: a Korean National Health Insurance Database-based cross-sectional study 2009-2015. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):1334. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19692-5. Wilkins MF, Wu JM. Lifetime risk of surgery for stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69(2):171–7. https://doi.org/10.23736/s0026-4784.16.04011-9. Wu JM, Hundley AF, Fulton RG, Myers ER. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. Women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(6):1278–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c2ce96. Barber MD. Symptoms and outcome measures of pelvic organ prolapse. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2005;48(3):648–61. Barber MD. Pelvic organ prolapse. BMJ. 2016;354:i3853. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3853. Manonai J, Wattanayingcharoenchai R. Relationship between pelvic floor symptoms and POP-Q measurements. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016;35(6):724–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.22786. Barber MD, Maher C. Epidemiology and outcome assessment of pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2013;24(11):1783–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2169-9. Madhu C, Swift S, Moloney-Geany S, Drake MJ. How to use the pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) system? Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37(S6):S39–s43. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23740. Persu C, Chapple CR, Cauni V, Gutue S, Geavlete P. Pelvic organ prolapse quantification system (POP-Q)—a new era in pelvic prolapse staging. J Med Life. 2011;4(1):75–81. Pham T, Burgart A, Kenton K, Mueller ER, Brubaker L. Current use of pelvic organ prolapse quantification by AUGS and ICS members. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2011;17(2):67–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e318207c904. Wiegersma M, Panman CM, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Lisman-van Leeuwen Y, Dekker JH. Is the hymen a suitable cut-off point for clinically relevant pelvic organ prolapse? Maturitas. 2017;99:86–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2017.02.012. Dietz HP, Mann KP. What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent. Int Urogynecol J. 2014;25(4):451–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-013-2307-4. Dietz HP, Haylen BT, Broome J. Ultrasound in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2001;18(5):511–4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0960-7692.2001.00494.x. Iglesia CB, Smithling KR. Pelvic organ prolapse. Am Fam Physician. 2017;96(3):179–85. Nyhus MO, Salvesen KA, Volloyhaug I. Association between pelvic floor muscle trauma and contraction in parous women from a general population—a cross sectional study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019;53(2):262–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.19195. Delancey JO, Hurd WW. Size of the urogenital hiatus in the levator ani muscles in normal women and women with pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(3):364–8. Majida M, Braekken I, Bo K, Benth J, Engh M. Anterior but not posterior compartment prolapse is associated with levator hiatus area: a three- and four-dimensional transperineal ultrasound study. BJOG. 2011;118(3):329–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02784.x. Ying T, Li Q, Xu L, Liu F, Hu B. Three-dimensional ultrasound appearance of pelvic floor in nulliparous women and pelvic organ prolapse women. Int J Med Sci. 2012;9(10):894–900. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.4829. Wen L, Zhou Q. Can we evaluate hiatal ballooning by measuring the anteroposterior diameter with 2-dimensional translabial ultrasonography? J Ultrasound Med. 2018;37(4):1001–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14445. Albrich SB, Welker K, Wolpert B, Steetskamp J, Porta S, Hasenburg A, et al. How common is ballooning? Hiatal area on 3D transperineal ultrasound in urogynecological patients and its association with lower urinary tract symptoms. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295(1):103–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-016-4200-0. Dou C, Li Q, Ying T, Yan Y, Wang X, Hu B. Determining “abnormal” levator hiatus distensibility using three-dimensional transperineal ultrasound in Chinese women. Front Med. 2018;12(5):572–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11684-017-0561-4. Wen L, Zhang J, Zeng S, Zhou Q. Using Z-scores to evaluate levator hiatal dimensions with four-dimensional translabial ultrasound. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2017;43(12):1840–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13454. Wen L, Liu M, Zhao B, Qing Z. Evaluating Z scores to quantify levator hiatal distensibility by 3-dimensional ultrasonography in nulliparas and women with pelvic organ prolapse. J Ultrasound Med. 2018;37(10):2363–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14590. Lakeman MM, Zijta FM, Peringa J, Nederveen AJ, Stoker J, Roovers JP. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging to quantify pelvic organ prolapse: reliability of assessment and correlation with clinical findings and pelvic floor symptoms. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(11):1547–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1772-5. Volloyhaug I, Rojas RG, Morkved S, Salvesen KA. Comparison of transperineal ultrasound with POP-Q for assessing symptoms of prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2019;30(4):595–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-018-3722-3. 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 Obstet Gynecol. 2016;47(3):363–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.14872. Lone F, Sultan AH, Stankiewicz A, Thakar R. The value of pre-operative multicompartment pelvic floor ultrasonography: a 1-year prospective study. Br J Radiol. 2014;87(1040):20140145. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140145. Najjari L, Hennemann J, Larscheid P, Papathemelis T, Maass N. Perineal ultrasound as a complement to POP-Q in the assessment of cystoceles. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:740925. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/740925. Arian A, Ghanbari Z, Chegini N, Hosseiny M. Agreement of ultrasound measures with POP-Q in patients with pelvic organ prolapse. Iran J Radiol. 2018;15(4):6. https://doi.org/10.5812/iranjradiol.68461. Lone FW, Thakar R, Sultan AH, Stankiewicz A. Accuracy of assessing pelvic organ prolapse quantification points using dynamic 2D transperineal ultrasound in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2012;23(11):1555–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-012-1779-y. Broekhuis SR, Kluivers KB, Hendriks JC, Futterer JJ, Barentsz JO, Vierhout ME. POP-Q, dynamic MR imaging, and perineal ultrasonography: do they agree in the quantification of female pelvic organ prolapse? Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009;20(5):541–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-009-0821-1. Bray R, Derpapas A, Fernando R, Khullar V, Panayi DC. Does the vaginal wall become thinner as prolapse grade increases? Int Urogynecol J. 2017;28(3):397–402. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-016-3150-1. Wen L, Li Y, Qing Z, Liu M. Detection of concealed uterine prolapse in the volume-rendering mode of 4-dimensional translabial ultrasound: a retrospective observational study. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(7):1705–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14855. Dietz HP. Clinical consequences of levator trauma. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;39(4):367–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.11141. Dietz HP, Franco AV, Shek KL, Kirby A. Avulsion injury and levator hiatal ballooning: two independent risk factors for prolapse? An observational study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2012;91(2):211–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01315.x. Rostaminia G, Peck JD, Quiroz LH, Shobeiri SA. Characteristics associated with pelvic organ prolapse in women with significant levator ani muscle deficiency. Int Urogynecol J. 2016;27(2):261–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2827-1. 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. Holland EL, Cran GW, Elwood JH, Pinkerton JH, Thompson W. Associations between pelvic anatomy, height and year of birth of men and women in Belfast. Ann Hum Biol. 1982;9(2):113–20. Munabi IG, Mirembe F, Luboga IG. Human pelvis height is associated with other pelvis measurements of obstetric value. Anat J Afr. 2015;4(1):457–65. Munabi IG, Byamugisha J, Luboobi L, Luboga SA, Mirembe F. Relationship between maternal pelvis height and other anthropometric measurements in a multisite cohort of Ugandan mothers. Pan Afr Med J. 2016;24:257. https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2016.24.257.9889. Zhu YC, Deng SH, Jiang Q, Zhang Y. Correlation between delivery mode and pelvic organ prolapse evaluated by four-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasonography. Med Sci Monit. 2018;24:7891–7. https://doi.org/10.12659/msm.911343. Dietz HP, Scoti F, Subramaniam N, Friedman T, Shek KL. Impact of subsequent pregnancies on pelvic floor functional anatomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(10):1517–22. Mouritsen L, Larsen JP. Symptoms, bother and POPQ in women referred with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2003;14(2):122–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-002-1024-1. Ellerkmann RM, Cundiff GW, Melick CF, Nihira MA, Leffler K, Bent AE. Correlation of symptoms with location and severity of pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(6):1332–7; discussion 1337-1338. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.119078. Panman C, Wiegersma M, Kollen BJ, Berger MY, Lisman-Van Leeuwen Y, Vermeulen KM, et al. Two-year effects and cost-effectiveness of pelvic floor muscle training in mild pelvic organ prolapse: a randomised controlled trial in primary care. BJOG. 2017;124(3):511–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13992. Rodriguez-Mias NL, Subramaniam N, Friedman T, Shek KL, Dietz HP. Prolapse assessment supine and standing: do we need different cutoffs for “significant prolapse”? Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(5):685–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3342-3. Braverman M, Kamisan Atan I, Turel F, Friedman T, Dietz HP. Does patient posture affect the ultrasound evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse? J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(1):233–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14688. 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12250. Majida M, Braekken IH, Umek W, Bo K, Saltyte Benth J, Ellstrom Engh M. Interobserver repeatability of three- and four-dimensional transperineal ultrasound assessment of pelvic floor muscle anatomy and function. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33(5):567–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.6351. Tan L, Shek KL, Atan IK, Rojas RG, Dietz HP. The repeatability of sonographic measures of functional pelvic floor anatomy. Int Urogynecol J. 2015;26(11):1667–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-015-2759-9. Giri A, Hartmann KE, Hellwege JN, Velez Edwards DR, Edwards TL. Obesity and pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(1):11–26.e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.01.039. Abdool Z, Dietz HP, Lindeque BG. Ethnic differences in the levator hiatus and pelvic organ descent: a prospective observational study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017;50(2):242–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.17297. Abdool Z, Dietz HP, Lindeque BG. Interethnic variation in pelvic floor morphology in women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J. 2018;29(5):745–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-017-3391-7. Derpapas A, Ahmed S, Vijaya G, Digesu GA, Regan L, Fernando R, et al. Racial differences in female urethral morphology and levator hiatal dimensions: an ultrasound study. Neurourol Urodyn. 2012;31(4):502–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.21181. Onwude JL. Genital prolapse in women. BMJ Clin Evid. 2012;3:817
Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

International Urogynecology Journal

Tập 31

15-33

Thông tin tác giả