|
|
|
| Evaluation of the influence of different ways of delivery and times of parity on female pelvic diaphragm hiatus with 4-dimensional ultrasound |
1. The People’s Hospital of Hainan Province, Haikou 570311, China;
2. School of Public Health, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract Objective: To evaluate the influence of different ways of delivery and times of parity on female pelvic diaphragm hiatus with 4-dimensional ultrasound. Methods: One hundred and two puerperae were recruited who underwent delivery in hospital and visited clinic after 42 days postpartum from November 2015 to April 2016. Those patients were divided into different groups according to the ways of delivery and times of parity. Thirty healthy adult females were recruited as controls. The diameter, transverse diameter and area of pelvic diaphgragm hiatus in resting and Valsalva state were measured with 4-dimension ultrasound on all subjects. Results: ①Significant differences were found in the diameter, transverse diameter and area of pelvic diaphgragm hiatus in resting and Valsalva states among all groups, and the vaginal delivery group had the largest size of pelvic diaphragm hiatus. ②Patients with multi-times of parity had larger diameter, transverse diameter and area of pelvic diaphgragm hiatus in resting and Valsalva states. Conclusions: Vaginal delivery and multi-times of parity cause larger damage to pelvic floor function and 4-demensioanl ultrasonography could be effective method to diagnose pelvic floor function injury.
|
|
Received: 25 April 2016
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1]Sung VW, Hampton BS. Epidemiology of pelvic floor dysfunction[J]. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am, 2009, 36(3): 421-443.
[2]Orno AK, Marsal K, Herbst A. Ultrasonographic anatomy of perineal structures during pregnancy and immediately following obstetric injury[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 32(4): 527-534.
[3]岳嵩，吴青青，王小榕，等. 经会阴四维超声成像对自然分娩后产妇盆底功能异常的评价[J]. 中华医学超声杂志：电子版，2014，11（8）：28-33.
[4]王雅贤，刘颖琳，陈少青，等. 产后盆底肌肉训练对改善盆底功能的作用分析[J]. 中国实用妇科与产科杂志，2008，24（8）：593-595.
[5]Dietz HP, Lekskulchai O. Ultrasound assessment of pelvic organ prolapse: the relationship between prolapse severity and symptoms[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2007, 29(6): 688-691.
[6]Serati M, Salvatore S, Khullar V, et al. Prospective study to assess risk factors for pelvic floor dysfunction after delivery[J]. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 2008, 87(3): 313-318.
[7]Bozkurt M, Yumru AE, Sahin L. Pelvic floor dysfunction, and effects of pregnancy and mode of delivery on pelvic floor[J]. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol, 2014, 53(4): 452-458.
[8]Lipschuetz M, Cohen SM, Liebergall-Wischnitzer M, et al. Degree of bother from pelvic floor dysfunction in women one year after first delivery[J]. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2015, 191: 90-94.
[9]Patel DA, Xu X, Thomason AD, et al. Childbirth and pelvic floor dysfunction: an epidemiologic approach to the assessment of prevention opportunities at delivery[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2006, 195(1): 23-28.
[10]Rortveit G, Hannestad YS. Association between mode of delivery and pelvic floor dysfunction[J]. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen, 2014, 134(19): 1848-1852.
[11]Stein TA, Kaur G, Summers A, et al. Comparison of bony dimensions at the level of the pelvic floor in women with and without pelvic organ prolapse[J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2009, 200(3): 241.
[12]Falkert A, Endress E, Weigl M, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound of the pelvic floor 2 days after first delivery: influence of constitutional and obstetric factors[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2010, 35(5): 583-588. |
|
|
|
