Correlation between trans-perineal ultra-sonography,urodynamic study and physical examination findings in female patients with stress urinary incontinence: Single center experience

Abstract

Background:

To evaluate the efficacy of Trans-perineal ultrasonography (TPUS) in assessment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI) and its correlation with urodynamic study (UDS) and physical examination in women with SUI.

Methods:

The study enrolled a total of 91 females including 66 women with SUI and 25 women with no history of urinary incontinence as control group. The α and β angles (anterior urethral and posterior urethro-vesical angle respectively) were recorded both at rest and at straining, using TPUS. The differences between these angles at rest and during the straining were considered as the rotational angles (Rα and Rβ). Urethral length and caliber, bladder neck funneling, and pubo-urethral distance were measured as well.

Results:

The mean (SD) α angle at rest of the SUI group was 49.0 (±14.3)°, which was higher than the same parameter in the control group: 47.6 (±9.7)°. Similarly, the α angle at straining was significantly higher in the SUI group versus the control group, 61.0 (±15.4)° versus 55.8 (±15.8)°. The mean (SD) β angle in the SUI group at rest was 124.6 (±28.5)°, which was significantly higher than that of the control group at 114.0 (±22.5)°. The mean (SD) β angle at straining was also higher in the SUI group versus the control group: 151.8 (±90.6) versus 136.0 (±27)°. Moreover, higher Rα and Rβ angels were documented in the SUI group.

Conclusion:

Our data suggest that TPUS can be considered as a non-invasive, easily conducted, and accurate modality in early diagnosis of female SUI. It may reduce the need for performing relatively invasive UDS. However, the role of TPUS in assessment of SUI severity remains to be studied probably with a larger sample size.

Keywords

Ultrasonography urinary incontinence stress urethra urodynamics female

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Melville

Katon

Delaney

, et al. Urinary incontinence in US women: a population-based study. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165(5): 537–542.

Blaivas

JG.

Outcome measures for urinary incontinence. Urology 1998; 51(2): 11–19.

Torella

De Franciscis

Russo

, et al. Stress urinary incontinence: usefulness of perineal ultrasound. Radiol Med 2014; 119(3): 189–194.

Sendag

Vidinli

Kazandi

, et al. Role of perineal sonography in the evaluation of patients with stress urinary incontinence. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2003; 43(1): 54–57.

Pregazzi

Sartore

Bortoli

, et al. Perineal ultrasound evaluation of urethral angle and bladder neck mobility in women with stress urinary incontinence. BJOG 2002; 109(7): 821–827.

Al-Saadi

WI.

Transperineal ultrasonography in stress urinary incontinence: the significance of urethral rotation angles. Arab J Urol 2016; 14(1): 66–71.

Schaer

Koechli

Schuessler

, et al. Perineal ultrasound for evaluating the bladder neck in urinary stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85(2): 220–224.

Dietz

HP.

Ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor. Part I: two-dimensional aspects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23(1): 80–92.

Howden

Zyczynski

Moalli

, et al. Comparison of autologous rectus fascia and cadaveric fascia in pubovaginal sling continence outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 194(5): 1444–1449.

10.

Kölbl

Bernaschek

Wolf

A comparative study of perineal ultrasound scanning and urethrocystography in patients with genuine stress incontinence. Arch Gynecol Obstet 1988; 244(1): 39–45.

11.

Al-Khuzaee

Al-Saadi

Perineal ultrasound for evaluating bladder neck and urethra in stress urinary incontinence. Iraqi J Med Sci 2012; 10: 367–374.

12.

Antovska

VS.

Ultrasound characteristics of patients with urinary stress incontinence with or without genital prolapse. Korean J Urol 2012; 53(10): 691–698.

13.

Di Pietto

Scaffa

Torella

, et al. Perineal ultrasound in the study of urethral mobility: proposal of a normal physiological range. Int Urogynecol J 2008; 19(10): 1405–1409.

14.

Minardi

Piloni

Amadi

, et al. Correlation between urodynamics and perineal ultrasound in female patients with urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2007; 26(2): 176–182.

15.

Onofriescu

Nemescu

P14.01: evaluation of patients with stress urinary incontinence by perineal ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005; 26(4): 460–460.

16.

Yang

J-M

Huang

W-C.

Discrimination of bladder disorders in female lower urinary tract symptoms on ultrasonographic cystourethrography. J Ultrasound Med 2002; 21(11): 1249–1255.

17.

Akram

Correlation between genuine stress incontinence in women and bladder neck mobility as assessed by inter labial ultrasound scan. Iraqi J Comm Med 2010; 3: 169–172.

18.

Alper

Çetinkaya

Okutgen

, et al. Evaluation of urethrovesical angle by ultrasound in women with and without urinary stress incontinence. Int Urogynecol J 2001; 12(5): 308–311.

19.

Gungor

Transvaginal sonography in the evaluation of urinary stress incontinence. Gynecol Obstet Reprod Biol Med 1997; 3: 436–438.

20.

Sweed

Sharara

Transperineal ultrasound evaluation of females with stress urinary incontinence. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol 2016; 5(3): 637–641.

21.

Turkoglu

Coskun

ADE

Arinkan

, et al. The role of transperineal ultrasound in the evaluation of stress urinary incontinence cases. Int Braz J Urol 2022; 48: 70–77.

22.

Weng

Yang

Xin

, et al. The significance of UVJ-M and PUVA in diagnosing stress urinary incontinence in women. Biomed Res (India) 2017; 28(3): 1305–1309.

23.

Hajebrahimi

Azaripour

Sadeghi-Bazargani

Clinical and transperineal ultrasound findings in females with stress urinary incontinence versus normal controls. Pak J Biol Sci 2009; 12(21): 1434–1437.

24.

Wahba

Abdelsayed

Mahmoud

AA.

The functional role of transperineal ultrasound in the evaluation of females with urinary incontinence compared to urodynamic studies. Med J Cairo Univ 2014; 8(2): 231–237.

25.

Illiano

Trama

Li Marzi

, et al. Translabial ultrasound: a non-invasive technique for assessing “technical errors” after TOT failure. Int Urogynecol J 2022; 33(4): 1023–1030.