Broekhuis Suzan R, Fütterer Jurgen J, Barentsz Jelle O, Vierhout Mark E, Kluivers Kirsten B
Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology 791, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Geert Grooteplein zuid 10, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. 2009 Jun;20(6):721-9. doi: 10.1007/s00192-009-0848-3. Epub 2009 Mar 7.
The aim of our study was to provide a systematic literature review of clinical studies on pelvic organ prolapse staging with use of dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.
The databases EMBASE and PubMed were searched. Clinical studies were included in case they compared pelvic organ prolapse stages as assessed on dynamic MR imaging (using a reference line) with a standardized method of clinical prolapse staging.
Ten studies were included, which made use of seven different reference lines in relation to a wide variety of anatomical landmarks.
Only few studies have compared pelvic organ prolapse stages as assessed by dynamic MR imaging and clinical examination in a standardized manner. The available evidence suggests that prolapse assessment on dynamic MR imaging may be useful in the posterior compartment, but clinical assessment and dynamic MR imaging seem interchangeable in the anterior and central compartment.
我们研究的目的是对使用动态磁共振(MR)成像进行盆腔器官脱垂分期的临床研究进行系统的文献综述。
检索了EMBASE和PubMed数据库。纳入的临床研究需将动态MR成像(使用参考线)评估的盆腔器官脱垂分期与标准化的临床脱垂分期方法进行比较。
纳入了10项研究,这些研究针对各种解剖标志使用了7条不同的参考线。
仅有少数研究以标准化方式比较了动态MR成像和临床检查评估的盆腔器官脱垂分期。现有证据表明,动态MR成像对后盆腔的脱垂评估可能有用,但在前盆腔和中盆腔,临床评估和动态MR成像似乎可相互替代。