Pelvic floor shape variations during pregnancy and after vaginal delivery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Strong evidence suggests that pelvic soft tissues soften during pregnancy to facilitate vaginal delivery while protecting against maternal birth injury. We hypothesized that these adaptations likely result in changes to the shape of the pelvic floor. Thus, this study aimed to compare midsagittal pelvic floor shapes from MRIs of nulliparous, gravid, and vaginally parous women using statistical shape modeling. METHODS A retrospective study of 22 nulliparous, 29 gravid (vaginally nulliparous), and 18 vaginally parous women who underwent pelvic MRI was performed. The pelvic floor was segmented from pubic symphysis to coccyx as a 2D polyline in the midsagittal plane. Once corresponding landmarks were computed and the variances between them determined by principal component analysis, the principal component scores were calculated for modes that explained variance greater than noise. These became the dependent variables in a MANOVA with univariate ANOVAs, linear regressions, and Benjamini-Hochberg corrections post hoc. Two initial statistical shape analyses were conducted to analyze differences based on gestational age (1st/2nd vs 3rd trimester) and vaginal parity (VP1 vs VP2-4). There were significant differences based on gestational age, but not vaginal parity. Thus, the final statistical shape analysis evaluated pelvic floor shapes of nulliparous, 3rd trimester gravid, and all vaginally parous subjects. RESULTS In the final analysis, six modes described variance-a measure of shape variability-greater than noise. Groups differed significantly for modes 1, 2, and 4 (p < 0.001, p = 0.021, and p = 0.015, respectively) and only differed between the nulliparous and gravid groups (p < 0.001, p = 0.018, and p = 0.012, respectively). Anatomically, these modes described levator plate relaxation and level III support protrusion in gravid compared to nulliparous subjects while the parous group straddled the other two. CONCLUSIONS The shape of the pelvic floor changes significantly during pregnancy and some of those changes are present after vaginal delivery. The fact that the nulliparous and gravid groups differ while the parous is similar to both suggests that some parous women regain their nulliparous shape after pregnancy and delivery while others do not. This indicates that remodeling during pregnancy and/or injury during vaginal delivery can have lasting effects on the pelvic floor.

[1]  H. Dietz,et al.  Does pregnancy affect pelvic organ mobility? , 2004, The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology.

[2]  A. Muñoz,et al.  Pelvic Floor Disorders 5–10 Years After Vaginal or Cesarean Childbirth , 2011, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[3]  H. Hagberg,et al.  A prospective observational study on tears during vaginal delivery: occurrences and risk factors , 2002, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[4]  Daniel K. Moon,et al.  Biomechanical Adaptations of the Rat Vagina and Supportive Tissues in Pregnancy to Accommodate Delivery , 2007, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[5]  H. Dietz,et al.  The prevalence of major abnormalities of the levator ani in urogynaecological patients , 2006, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[6]  Victoria L Handa,et al.  Vaginal Childbirth and Pelvic Floor Disorders , 2013, Women's health.

[7]  H. Dietz,et al.  The effect of pregnancy on hiatal dimensions and urethral mobility: an observational study , 2012, International Urogynecology Journal.

[8]  David Thissen,et al.  Quick and Easy Implementation of the Benjamini-Hochberg Procedure for Controlling the False Positive Rate in Multiple Comparisons , 2002 .

[9]  H. Tibbals,et al.  Biomechanical properties of the vaginal wall: effect of pregnancy, elastic fiber deficiency, and pelvic organ prolapse. , 2008, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  Mark E. Lockhart,et al.  Magnetic resonance assessment of pelvic anatomy and pelvic floor disorders after childbirth , 2008, International Urogynecology Journal.

[11]  F. Rohlf,et al.  Extensions of the Procrustes Method for the Optimal Superimposition of Landmarks , 1990 .

[12]  M. E. Ellström Engh,et al.  Levator hiatus dimensions in late pregnancy and the process of labor: a 3- and 4-dimensional transperineal ultrasound study. , 2014, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  David J. Hawkes,et al.  Instantiation and registration of statistical shape models of the femur and pelvis using 3D ultrasound imaging , 2008, Medical Image Anal..

[14]  A. Elhan,et al.  Prevalence of Pelvic Floor Disorders in the Female Population and the Impact of Age, Mode of Delivery, and Parity , 2011, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[15]  Su-Lin Lee,et al.  Physical-Based Statistical Shape Modeling of the Levator Ani , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[16]  Richard L Lieber,et al.  Pregnancy-induced adaptations in the intrinsic structure of rat pelvic floor muscles. , 2015, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  M. Vessey,et al.  Epidemiology of genital prolapse: observations from the Oxford Family Planning Association study , 1997, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[18]  R. E. Ricks,et al.  The natural history of pelvic organ support in pregnancy , 2003, International Urogynecology Journal.

[19]  S. Shobeiri,et al.  Levator Ani Deficiency and Pelvic Organ Prolapse Severity , 2013, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  R. Lieber,et al.  Pregnancy-induced adaptations in intramuscular extracellular matrix of rat pelvic floor muscles. , 2016, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[21]  L. Viktrup,et al.  The Symptom of Stress Incontinence Caused by Pregnancy Or Delivery in Primiparas , 1992, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[22]  B. Calhoun,et al.  Pelvic organ support in pregnancy and postpartum , 2004, International Urogynecology Journal.

[23]  Willi A. Kalender,et al.  Building a statistical shape model of the pelvis , 2004, CARS.

[24]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing , 1995 .

[25]  Guido Gerig,et al.  Geodesic shape regression with multiple geometries and sparse parameters , 2017, Medical Image Anal..

[26]  Jennifer M Wu,et al.  Prevalence and Trends of Symptomatic Pelvic Floor Disorders in U.S. Women , 2014, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[27]  K. Schweitzer,et al.  Ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor: changes in anatomy during and after first pregnancy , 2014, Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

[28]  Milan Sonka,et al.  3D Slicer as an image computing platform for the Quantitative Imaging Network. , 2012, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[29]  John O L DeLancey,et al.  The Appearance of Levator Ani Muscle Abnormalities in Magnetic Resonance Images After Vaginal Delivery , 2003, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[30]  B. Seaward,et al.  Maternal physiologic adaptations to early human pregnancy , 1988 .

[31]  Sender Herschorn,et al.  Female pelvic floor anatomy: the pelvic floor, supporting structures, and pelvic organs. , 2004, Reviews in urology.