M.R. ORAZOV¹, V.E. RADZINSKIY¹, F.F. MINNULLINA²

 ¹Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Moscow

²Kazan Federal University, Kazan

Contact details:

Minnullina F.F. — PhD (Medicine), Assistant Professor, Head of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute for Fundamental Medicine and Biology

Address: 18 Kremlevskaya St., 420008 Kazan, Russian Federation, tel.: +7-987-233-04-78, e-mail: minnullina_f@mail.ru

 Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a widespread disease and a frequent indication for surgical treatment. The risk of surgery for POP during life can reach 20%. In the coming years, the burden of POP on healthcare systems will only grow.

In 50% of patients, a recurrence of the disease develops after the correction of POP, and 30% require a repeat operation. Specialists face the task of improving the medium- and long-term results of surgical intervention. Timely treatment and accurate preoperative assessment are crucial for improving the results of POP surgical correction.

The purpose is to analyze the scientific data accumulated to date on the possibilities of various methods of POP diagnosis.

Material and methods. We analyzed approaches to POP diagnosis developed by professional associations, as well as evidence-based data on the various techniques of POP diagnosis published in PubMed, CochraneLibrary, Science Direct, Google Scholar, eLibrary, and CyberLeninka databases. To search for 2010–2024 publications, we used the keywords «pelvic organ prolapse», «diagnosis», and «visualization».

Results. Based on the analysis, we conclude that the currently used ICS POP-Q quantification system has a number of limitations, and imaging methods (sonography, MRI) are currently not standardized or validated, and therefore their diagnostic capabilities are not fully utilized.

Conclusions. All of the above explains the importance of conducting qualitative research to improve the POP quantitative assessment and to explore the diagnostic capabilities of imaging techniques. Accurate preoperative assessment is crucial to improve the results of surgical intervention.

Key words: pelvic organ prolapse, diagnosis, imaging techniques, ultrasound, MRI.

REFERENCES

1. Shek K.L., Dietz H.P. Assessment of pelvic organ prolapse: a review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2016, vol. 48 (6), pp. 681–692.
2. Wu J.M., Matthews C.A., Conover M.M. et al. Lifetime risk of stress urinary incontinence or pelvic organ prolapse surgery. Obstet Gynecol, 2014, vol. 123 (6), pp. 1201–1206.
3. Van Velthoven M.J.J., Gudde A.N., Struijs F. et al. the effect of growth factors on vaginal wound healing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tissue Eng. Part B Rev, 2023, vol. 29 (4), pp. 429–440.
4. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii “Vypadenie zhenskikh polovykh organov” [Clinical guidelines «Prolapse of female genital organs»]. Moscow, 2024. P. 36.
5. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii “Rektotsele” [Clinical guidelines «Rectocele»]. Moscow, 2022. P. 46.
6. Gvozdev M.Yu., Tupikina N.V., Kasyan G.R., Pushkar’ D.Yu. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii no. 3 “Prolaps tazovykh organov v klinicheskoy praktike vracha-urologa” [Methodical recommendations No. 3 «Pelvic organ prolapse in the clinical practice of a urologist»]. Moscow, 2016. P. 52, available at: https://uroweb.ru/sites/default/files/pto.pdf
7. Iglesia C.B., Smithling K.R. Pelvic organ prolapse. Am. Fam. Physician, 2017, vol. 96 (3), pp. 179–185.
8. Committee on Practice Bulletins — Gynecology and the American Urogynecoligc Society. Practice bulletin no. 176: pelvic organ prolapse. Obstet Gynecol, 2017, vol. 129 (4), pp. e56–e72.
9. Gilyadova A., Ishchenko A., Puchkova E. et al. Diagnostic value of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) of the pelvic floor in genital prolapses. Biomedicines, 2023, vol. 11 (10), p. 2849.
10. Wei J.T., Nygaard I., Richter H.E. et al. Pelvic floor disorders network. A midurethral sling to reduce incontinence after vaginal prolapse repair. N Engl. J. Med., 2012, vol. 366 (25), pp. 2358–2367.
11. Dietz H.P., Mann K.P. What is clinically relevant prolapse? An attempt at defining cutoffs for the clinical assessment of pelvic organ descent. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2014, vol. 25 (4), pp. 451–455.
12. García-Mejido J.A., González-Diaz E., Ortega I. et al. 2D ultrasound diagnosis of middle compartment prolapse: a multicenter study. Quant Imaging Med. Surg, 2022, vol. 12 (2), pp. 959–966.
13. Lone F.W., Thakar R., Sultan A.H., 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, vol. 23 (11), pp. 1555–1560.
14. García-Mejido J.A., Ramos-Vega Z., Fernández-Palacín A. et al. predictive model for the diagnosis of uterine prolapse based on transperineal ultrasound. Tomography, 2022, vol. 8 (4), pp. 1716–1725.
15. García-Mejido J.A., Ramos Vega Z., Armijo Sánchez A. et al. Interobserver variability of ultrasound measurements for the differential diagnosis of uterine prolapse and cervical elongation without uterine prolapse. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2022, vol. 33 (10), pp. 2825–2831.
16. García-Mejido J.A., Ramos-Vega Z., Armijo-Sánchez A. et al. Differential diagnosis of middle compartment pelvic organ prolapse with transperineal ultrasound. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2021, vol. 32 (8), pp. 2219–2225.
17. Shek K.L., Dietz H.P. What is abnormal uterine descent on translabial ultrasound?. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2015, vol. 26 (12), pp. 1783–1787.
18. Gao Y., Zhao Z., Yang Y. et al. Diagnostic value of pelvic floor ultrasonography for diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Int. Urogynecol. J, 2020, vol. 31 (1), pp. 15–33.
19. Chechneva M.A., Buyanova S.N., Shchukina N.A. et al. Ultrasound diagnostics of genital prolapse and its complications in women. SonoAce Ultrasound, 2012, no. 23, pp. 25–33 (in Russ.).
20. Rosenkrantz A.B., Lewis M.T., Yalamanchili S. et al. Prevalence of pelvic organ prolapse detected at dynamic MRI in women without history of pelvic floor dysfunction: comparison of two reference lines. Clin. Radiol, 2014, vol. 69 (2), pp.e71–77.
21. Eisenberg V.H., Chantarasorn V., Shek K.L., Dietz H.P. Does levator ani injury affect cystocele type? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010, vol. 36 (5), pp. 618–623.
22. Nechiporenko A.S., Nechiporenko A.N., Mikhailov A.N. Static and dynamic pelvic MRI in women: Role in the diagnosis of genital prolapse. Innov. Technol. Med, 2017, vol. 4, pp. 251–255.
23. Kamal E.M., Abdel Rahman F.M. Role of MR imaging in surgical planning and prediction of successful surgical repair of pelvic organ prolapse. Middle East Fertil. Soc. J, 2013, vol. 18, pp. 196–201.
24. Gupta A.P., Pandya P.R., Nguyen M.L. et al. Use of dynamic MRI of the pelvic floor in the assessment of anterior compartment disorders. Curr. Urol. Rep, 2018, vol. 19 (12), p. 112.
25. El Sayed R.F., Alt C.D., Maccioni F. et al. ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction — joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Eur. Radiol, 2017, vol. 27 (5), pp. 2067–2085.
26. Arif-Tiwari H., Twiss C.O., Lin F.C. et al. Improved detection of pelvic organ prolapse: comparative utility of defecography phase sequence to nondefecography Valsalva maneuvers in dynamic pelvic floor magnetic resonance imaging. Curr. Probl. Diagn. Radiol, 2019, vol. 48 (4), pp. 342–347.
27. Elshazly W.G., El Nekady Ael A., Hassan H. Role of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in management of obstructed defecation case series. Int. J. Surg, 2010, vol. 8 (4), pp. 274–282.
28. Ramage L., Georgiou P., Qiu S. et al. Can we correlate pelvic floor dysfunction severity on MR defecography with patient-reported symptom severity? Updates Surg, 2018, vol. 70 (4), pp. 467–476.
29. Gupta S., Sharma J.B., Hari S. et al. Study of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet, 2012, vol. 286 (4), pp. 953–958.