Swenson Carolyn W, Smith Tovia M, Luo Jiajia, Kolenic Giselle E, Ashton-Miller James A, DeLancey John O
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;216(2):155.e1-155.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.074. Epub 2016 Sep 8.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
在不同盆腔器官支撑模式的女性中,初始宫颈位置以及宫颈支撑对牵引的阻力(我们称之为“顶端支撑硬度”)如何比较尚不清楚。定义顶端支撑硬度的正常范围对于更好地理解顶端支撑丧失的病理生理学很重要。
我们研究的目的是确定:(1)在临床盆腔器官脱垂定量检查中顶端支撑正常,但有阴道壁脱垂(膀胱膨出和/或直肠膨出)的女性,其术中宫颈位置和顶端支撑硬度是否与盆腔支撑正常的女性相同;(2)所有有顶端脱垂的女性术中宫颈位置和顶端支撑硬度是否异常。第三个目的是确定与临床盆腔器官脱垂定量检查C点独立相关的临床和生物力学因素。
我们对计划接受妇科手术的各种盆腔器官支撑情况的女性进行了一项观察性研究。所有女性均接受了术前临床检查,包括盆腔器官脱垂定量检查。术中使用计算机控制的伺服驱动装置测量宫颈起始位置及其支撑在从0至18 N增加的牵引力方向上稳定移动的阻力(硬度)。根据临床盆腔器官脱垂定量检查对盆腔支撑的分类,将女性分为3组进行分析:(1)“正常/正常”组为顶端(C<-5 cm)和阴道(Ba和Bp<0 cm)支撑正常的女性;(2)正常/脱垂组为顶端支撑正常(C<-5 cm)但阴道前壁或后壁脱垂(Ba和/或Bp≥0 cm)的女性;(3)脱垂/脱垂组为顶端和阴道壁均脱垂(C>-5 cm且Ba和/或Bp≥0 cm)的女性。然后比较人口统计学、术中宫颈位置和顶端支撑硬度值。临床检查和手术测试期间宫颈位置的正常范围由正常/正常组中观察到的总值范围定义。确定每组中宫颈位置在正常范围内和范围外的女性比例。进行线性回归以确定与临床盆腔器官脱垂定量检查C点独立相关的变量。
总共纳入52名女性:正常/正常组14名,正常/脱垂组11名,脱垂/脱垂组27名。在手术室中施加1 N牵引力时,正常/脱垂组中50%的女性宫颈位置超出正常范围,而10%的女性顶端支撑硬度超出正常范围。在脱垂/脱垂组中,81%的女性宫颈位置超出正常范围,8%的女性顶端支撑硬度超出正常范围。在18 N牵引力下观察到类似的宫颈位置结果;然而,正常/脱垂组中顶端支撑硬度超出正常范围的女性比例增加到50%,脱垂/脱垂组中增加到59%。随着牵引力从1 N增加到18 N,脱垂/脱垂组的顶端支撑硬度在统计学上低于正常/正常组(0.47±0.18 N/mm对0.63±0.20 N/mm,P = 0.006),但所有其他比较均无统计学意义。在控制年龄、产次、体重指数和顶端支撑硬度后,1 N牵引力下的宫颈位置仍然是临床盆腔器官脱垂定量检查C点的独立预测因素,但仅在脱垂/脱垂组中。
临床检查中膀胱膨出和/或直肠膨出但顶端支撑正常的女性中,约50%在术中牵引下宫颈位置超出正常范围,而19%的子宫脱垂女性顶端支撑正常。识别顶端支撑超出定义正常范围的女性可能是一种更准确的方法,以确定那些真正需要子宫切除术和/或顶端支撑手术的人,并使那些不需要的人免受手术。