Comparison of the anogenital distance and anthropometry of the perineum in patients with and without pelvic organ prolapse.

Autor:	Sánchez-Ferrer ML; Servicio de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Hospital Clínico Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, El Palmar, Murcia, España; Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Murcia (IMIB-Arrixaca), El Palmar, Murcia, España. Electronic address: marisasanchezferrer1@gmail.com., Moya-Jiménez LC; Servicio de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Hospital Universitario Santa Lucía, Cartagena, Murcia, España., Mendiola J; Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Murcia (IMIB-Arrixaca), El Palmar, Murcia, España; Departamento de Salud Pública, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Murcia,, Murcia, España.
Jazyk:	English; Spanish; Castilian
Zdroj:	Actas urologicas espanolas [Actas Urol Esp] 2016 Dec; Vol. 40 (10), pp. 628-634. Date of Electronic Publication: 2016 Jun 30.
DOI:	10.1016/j.acuro.2016.04.004
Abstrakt:	Objectives: To determine whether there are differences in the anthropometric measures of the perineum for women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse who are candidates for surgery, with or without urinary incontinence, and for patients without pelvic floor dysfunction. The main objective was to measure the anogenital distance in its 2 variants: anoclitoral and anofourchette. The anogenital distance appears to be determined prenatally and is influenced by the intrauterine hormonal environment. The secondary objective was to measure the length of the genital hiatus, the perineal body and the distance between the 2 ischial tuberosities. Material and Methods: An observational case-control study was conducted with 58 patients. The cases (n=22) were patients with stages >II 2 in the Baden-Walker classification system. The controls were patients with normal pelvic floors. Measurements were performed with a digital calliper. The patients' tocogynecological history, lifestyle habits and risk factors were recorded. Results: The case patients had a significantly shorter anogenital anofourchette distance than that of the control patients (P=.001), a significantly longer anogenital anoclitoral distance than the control patients (P=.0001) and a significantly longer genital hiatus length than the control patients (P=.02). Conclusions: This was an observational study with a small sample. We cannot determine whether the difference in these distances are caused by or are the result of this disease. Given that the anogenital distance appears to be determined prenatally, we question whether this changed distance could be a risk factor for developing pelvic floor dysfunction. (Copyright © 2016 AEU. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu