S'abonner

Intraoperative cervix location and apical support stiffness in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse - 18/04/17

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.074 
Carolyn W. Swenson, MD a, , Tovia M. Smith, MD a, Jiajia Luo, PhD b, Giselle E. Kolenic, MA a, James A. Ashton-Miller, PhD b, John O. DeLancey, MD a
a Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 
b Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 

Corresponding author: Carolyn W. Swenson, MD.

Abstract

Background

It is unknown how initial cervix location and cervical support resistance to traction, which we term “apical support stiffness,” compare in women with different patterns of pelvic organ support. Defining a normal range of apical support stiffness is important to better understand the pathophysiology of apical support loss.

Objective

The aims of our study were to determine whether: (1) women with normal apical support on clinic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification, but with vaginal wall prolapse (cystocele and/or rectocele), have the same intraoperative cervix location and apical support stiffness as women with normal pelvic support; and (2) all women with apical prolapse have abnormal intraoperative cervix location and apical support stiffness. A third objective was to identify clinical and biomechanical factors independently associated with clinic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point C.

Study Design

We conducted an observational study of women with a full spectrum of pelvic organ support scheduled to undergo gynecologic surgery. All women underwent a preoperative clinic examination, including Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification. Cervix starting location and the resistance (stiffness) of its supports to being moved steadily in the direction of a traction force that increased from 0-18 N was measured intraoperatively using a computer-controlled servoactuator device. Women were divided into 3 groups for analysis according to their pelvic support as classified using the clinic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification: (1) “normal/normal” was women with normal apical (C < –5 cm) and vaginal (Ba and Bp < 0 cm) support; (2) normal/prolapse had normal apical support (C < –5 cm) but prolapse of the anterior or posterior vaginal walls (Ba and/or Bp ≥ 0 cm); and (3) prolapse/prolapse had both apical and vaginal wall prolapse (C > –5 cm and Ba and/or Bp ≥ 0 cm). Demographics, intraoperative cervix locations, and apical support stiffness values were then compared. Normal range of cervix location during clinic examination and operative testing was defined by the total range of values observed in the normal/normal group. The proportion of women in each group with cervix locations within and outside the normal range was determined. Linear regression was performed to identify variables independently associated with clinic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point C.

Results

In all, 52 women were included: 14 in the normal/normal group, 11 in the normal/prolapse group, and 27 in the prolapse/prolapse group. At 1 N of traction force in the operating room, 50% of women in the normal/prolapse group had cervix locations outside the normal range while 10% had apical support stiffness outside the normal range. Of women in the prolapse/prolapse group, 81% had cervix locations outside the normal range and 8% had apical support stiffness outside the normal range. Similar results for cervix locations were observed at 18 N of traction force; however the proportion of women with apical support stiffness outside the normal range increased to 50% in the normal/prolapse group and 59% in the prolapse/prolapse group. The prolapse/prolapse group had statistically lower apical support stiffness compared to the normal/normal group with increased traction from 1-18 N (0.47 ± 0.18 N/mm vs 0.63 ± 0.20 N/mm, P = .006), but all other comparisons were nonsignificant. After controlling for age, parity, body mass index, and apical support stiffness, cervix location at 1 N traction force remained an independent predictor of clinic Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification point C, but only in the prolapse/prolapse group.

Conclusion

Approximately 50% of women with cystocele and/or rectocele but normal apical support in the clinic had cervix locations outside the normal range under intraoperative traction, while 19% of women with uterine prolapse had normal apical support. Identifying women whose apical support falls outside a defined normal range may be a more accurate way to identify those who truly need a hysterectomy and/or an apical support procedure and to spare those who do not.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : apical support stiffness, cervix location, prolapse


Plan


 Dr Smith is currently affiliated with Virginia Women’s Center, Richmond, VA. Dr Luo is currently affiliated with the University of Michigan-Shanghai Jiao Tong University Joint Institute, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
 This research was supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Research on Women’s Health grant P50 HD044406. Investigator support for C.W.S. was provided by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women’s Reproductive Health Research Career Development Award K12 HD065257. The NIH did not play a role in the research design, data collection/analysis, decision to publish, or choice of journal for this manuscript.
 The authors report no conflict of interest.
 Cite this article as: Swenson CW, Smith TM, Luo J, et al. Intraoperative cervix location and apical support stiffness in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;216:155.e1-8.


© 2016  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 216 - N° 2

P. 155.e1-155.e8 - février 2017 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Extracellular matrix regenerative graft attenuates the negative impact of polypropylene prolapse mesh on vagina in rhesus macaque
  • Rui Liang, Katrina Knight, William Barone, Robert W. Powers, Alexis Nolfi, Stacy Palcsey, Steven Abramowitch, Pamela A. Moalli
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Threatened preterm labor is a risk factor for impaired cognitive development in early childhood
  • Cristina Paules, Victoria Pueyo, Elena Martí, Susana de Vilchez, Irina Burd, Pilar Calvo, Daniel Oros

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.