METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving 195 women enrolled in a longitudinal cohort study and seen 20 years after an index birth. All had a standardized patient-administered questionnaire, the International Continence Society Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification assessment and 4D translabial ultrasound. Main outcome measures were objective POP clinically and on translabial ultrasound. Postimaging assessment of levator integrity and sonographically determined pelvic organ descent was done blinded against other data.
RESULTS: Of 195 women who were seen a mean of 23 (range, 19.4-46.2) years after their first birth, one declined ultrasound assessment and was excluded, leaving 194. Mean age was 50.2 (range 36.9-66.5) years with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.6 (range, 18.3-54.3) kg/m2 . Median parity was 3 (range 1-14). Ninety-one percent (n = 176) had delivered vaginally. Eighteen percent (n = 34) were symptomatic of prolapse. Clinically, 36% (n = 69) had significant POP. Levator avulsion was diagnosed in 16% (n = 31). Mean levator avulsion defect score was 2.2 (range, 0-12). On univariate analysis, levator avulsion and levator avulsion defect score were associated with clinically and sonographically significant POP, that is, odds ratio 2.6 (1.2-5.7), P = .01; and odds ratio 3.3 (1.4-7.7); P = .003, respectively; Ba (P P P P = .009) descent, but not POP symptoms, C, and Bp. Multivariate analysis controlling for potential confounders confirmed our findings.
CONCLUSIONS: Levator avulsion is associated with female pelvic organ prolapse, especially of the anterior and central compartments. This association may become stronger with aging.
AIMS: Our objective was to investigate long-term association between delivery mode, LAM avulsion and obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS) in women at least 20 years after their first birth.
METHODS: All women recruited at 'index birth' of the Dunedin (New Zealand) arm of ProLong (PROlapse and incontinence LONG-term research) Study, were invited to have translabial and transperineal ultrasound assessment of LAM and anal sphincters. Post-processing analysis of imaging data was performed blinded against delivery data. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ2 test and results are expressed as odds ratios (OR).
RESULTS: Of the initial 1250 participants, 196 women returned for examination. Mean age was 50.8 years with a mean body mass index of 27.6 and median parity was three. They were seen on average 23 years after their first delivery. Four data sets were unavailable and one declined ultrasound assessment, leaving 191 for analysis. LAM avulsion was diagnosed in 29 (15.2%), and 24 women (12.6%) had significant anal sphincter defect. LAM avulsion was associated with forceps delivery (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.04-5.80, P = 0.041). Forceps conveyed a greater risk of OASIS (21%) compared to a spontaneous vaginal delivery (11%) but did not reach statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS: Forceps delivery is associated with long-term injurious effect on pelvic floor structures. Discussions of the long-term negative impact of pelvic floor structures and their functions are necessary to achieve an informed consent toward an operative vaginal delivery.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study, incorporating 195 women involved in a longitudinal cohort study. Palpation for levator integrity was performed, followed by a four-dimensional translabial ultrasound. LAM avulsion defects were diagnosed in the presence of puborectalis muscle detachment from its insertion. Post-processing analysis of ultrasound volumes for LAM integrity on TUI was performed blinded against palpation findings. Agreement between methods was assessed using Cohen's κ.
RESULTS: In all, 388 paired assessments of LAM bilaterally, were available. Sixteen (8.2%) unilateral avulsion defects were detected on palpation. Sonographically, 31 (16%) were diagnosed with avulsions: 4.6% bilateral and 11.3% unilateral. An overall agreement of 91% was observed between digital palpation and TUI, yielding a Cohen's κ of 0.32 (95% confidence interval 0.15-0.48) demonstrating "fair agreement": and implying 25% sensitivity, 98% specificity, 63% positive predictive value, and 92% negative predictive value. Analysis of the first and last 20 palpations showed no change in performance during the 13-day study period.
CONCLUSION: Assessment of LAM avulsion defects by digital palpation is feasible but may require substantial training. Confirmation by imaging is crucial, especially if the diagnosis of avulsion may influence clinical management.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study involving 195 women, participants of the Dunedin arm of the ProLong study (PROlapse and incontinence LONG-term research study) seen 20 years after their index birth. Assessment included a standardized questionnaire, ICS POP-Q and 4D translabial ultrasound. Post-imaging analysis of LAM and EAS integrity was undertaken blinded against other data. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test and results were expressed as odds ratios (OR).
RESULTS: LAM avulsion and EAS defects were diagnosed in 31 (16%) and 24 (12.4%) women respectively. No significant difference in the prevalence of levator avulsion and EAS defects between primiparous (VP1) and multiparous (VP2+) women who had delivered vaginally (OR 1.9, 95% CI 0.72-5.01, p = 0.26) and (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.4-3.8, p = 0.76) respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Most LAM avulsions and EAS defects seem to be caused by the first vaginal birth. Subsequent vaginal deliveries after the first were unlikely to cause further LAM trauma.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that pain, which is localized to the low back, differs epidemiologically from that which occurs simultaneously or close in time to pain at other anatomical sites SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Low back pain (LBP) often occurs in combination with other regional pain, with which it shares similar psychological and psychosocial risk factors. However, few previous epidemiological studies of LBP have distinguished pain that is confined to the low back from that which occurs as part of a wider distribution of pain.
METHODS: We analyzed data from CUPID, a cohort study that used baseline and follow-up questionnaires to collect information about musculoskeletal pain, associated disability, and potential risk factors, in 47 occupational groups (office workers, nurses, and others) from 18 countries.
RESULTS: Among 12,197 subjects at baseline, 609 (4.9%) reported localized LBP in the past month, and 3820 (31.3%) nonlocalized LBP. Nonlocalized LBP was more frequently associated with sciatica in the past month (48.1% vs. 30.0% of cases), occurred on more days in the past month and past year, was more often disabling for everyday activities (64.1% vs. 47.3% of cases), and had more frequently led to medical consultation and sickness absence from work. It was also more often persistent when participants were followed up after a mean of 14 months (65.6% vs. 54.1% of cases). In adjusted Poisson regression analyses, nonlocalized LBP was differentially associated with risk factors, particularly female sex, older age, and somatizing tendency. There were also marked differences in the relative prevalence of localized and nonlocalized LBP by occupational group.
CONCLUSION: Future epidemiological studies should distinguish where possible between pain that is limited to the low back and LBP that occurs in association with pain at other anatomical locations.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.