Comparison of pelvic floor morphometry in supine and standing in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse: A cross-sectional exploratory study

Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and gravity may both challenge pelvic organ support and contribute to the development or worsening of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study aimed to assess whether pelvic floor morphometry differs between supine and standing positions in women with and without POP, at rest and with elevated IAP, and to compare the change in measures from the supine to standing position between groups. Thirty premenopausal vaginally parous women with ( n = 15 ) and without ( n = 15 ) POP were included. Transperineal ultrasound was used to assess pelvic floor morphometry (bladder neck [BN], rectal ampulla [RA], levator plate angle [LPA], anorectal angle [ARA], levator anteroposterior distance [LAP], and levator hiatal area [LHA]) in supine and standing, at rest and bearing down. Measures were compared between positions (supine and standing) and groups (women with and without POP). At rest, BN and RA were lower and LPA was smaller in standing than supine for all participants (all p < 0 . 04 ), and LHA and LAP distance were greater in standing than supine for women with POP ( p < 0 . 001 ). In standing rest, BN and RA were lower and LHA was greater in women with than without POP ( p < 0 . 001 ). There were no differences between women with and without POP in these measures in supine (all p > 0 . 23 ). ARA was greater in women with POP than without POP in both positions at rest ( p = 0 . 002 ). During bearing down, BN and RA were lower, ARA and LPA were smaller, and LHA and LAP distance were larger in standing than in supine for all participants (all p < 0 . 023 ). In bearing down in both positions, BN and RA were lower and ARA and LHA were greater in women with than without POP (all p = 0 . 013 ). Our findings indicate lower pelvic floor support in women with POP compared to women without POP that is evident during bearing down in supine, and at rest and during bearing down in standing. These findings underscore the utility of transperineal ultrasound to assess pelvic floor morphometry in standing to guide management of women with POP.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Continence
Published
2024-10-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cont.2024.101708
Primary Topic
Pelvic floor disorders treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of pelvic floor morphometry in supine and standing in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse: A cross-sectional exploratory study

Lori Forner, Emma Beckman, Michelle Smith, Marie‐Pierre Cyr et al.
Continence
Pelvic floor disorders treatments
article

Comparison of pelvic floor morphometry in supine and standing in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse: A cross-sectional exploratory study

Lori Forner, Emma Beckman, Michelle Smith, Marie‐Pierre Cyr, Paul W. Hodges
article en

Abstract

Intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and gravity may both challenge pelvic organ support and contribute to the development or worsening of pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study aimed to assess whether pelvic floor morphometry differs between supine and standing positions in women with and without POP, at rest and with elevated IAP, and to compare the change in measures from the supine to standing position between groups. Thirty premenopausal vaginally parous women with ( n = 15 ) and without ( n = 15 ) POP were included. Transperineal ultrasound was used to assess pelvic floor morphometry (bladder neck [BN], rectal ampulla [RA], levator plate angle [LPA], anorectal angle [ARA], levator anteroposterior distance [LAP], and levator hiatal area [LHA]) in supine and standing, at rest and bearing down. Measures were compared between positions (supine and standing) and groups (women with and without POP). At rest, BN and RA were lower and LPA was smaller in standing than supine for all participants (all p < 0 . 04 ), and LHA and LAP distance were greater in standing than supine for women with POP ( p < 0 . 001 ). In standing rest, BN and RA were lower and LHA was greater in women with than without POP ( p < 0 . 001 ). There were no differences between women with and without POP in these measures in supine (all p > 0 . 23 ). ARA was greater in women with POP than without POP in both positions at rest ( p = 0 . 002 ). During bearing down, BN and RA were lower, ARA and LPA were smaller, and LHA and LAP distance were larger in standing than in supine for all participants (all p < 0 . 023 ). In bearing down in both positions, BN and RA were lower and ARA and LHA were greater in women with than without POP (all p = 0 . 013 ). Our findings indicate lower pelvic floor support in women with POP compared to women without POP that is evident during bearing down in supine, and at rest and during bearing down in standing. These findings underscore the utility of transperineal ultrasound to assess pelvic floor morphometry in standing to guide management of women with POP.

ContinenceVol. 12
Queensland Health (AU), The University of Queensland (AU)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Pelvic floor disorders treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.