Publication | Open Access
<scp>OP18</scp>.02: Postprocessing of pelvic floor ultrasound data: how repeatable is it?
11
Citations
0
References
2013
Year
Medical UltrasoundPelvic Reconstructive SurgeryDiagnosisSurgical ScienceSurgeryAnatomyTreatment VerificationUrogenital RadiologyUrogynecologyClinical EvaluationRadiologyPhysical MedicineHealth SciencesImaging AnatomyMedical ImagingBladder NeckOutcomes ResearchMusculoskeletal UltrasoundEvaluationUltrasoundRepeatability SeriesUrologyVoiding DysfunctionPelvic ProlapsePelvic Floor DysfunctionAcceptable RepeatabilityMedicine
Translabial 3D/ 4D pelvic floor ultrasound is increasingly used in the evaluation of pelvic floor disorders. Commonly, this involves the analysis of stored volume data sets by post-processing at a later date. In this study we aimed to assess the time requirement to reaching acceptable repeatability for the most commonly employed outcome measures in pelvic floor ultrasound. Between 2010 and 2013, 20 individuals from 10 countries underwent training in post-processing of ultrasound volume data sets for the purpose of prolapse assessment. They undertook test- retest series (n > =20) between Day 2 and Day 15 of training, depending on progress. Outcome measures tested included levator hiatal area on Valsalva, descent of the bladder neck, bladder, uterus and rectal ampulla and rectocele depth. US volume datasets had been acquired supine and after voiding, using a Voluson 730 expert system with RAB 8–4 MHz transducer. The resulting datasets were investigated with the help of post-processing software 4D View v 10.0. After an initial training session of 10–20 cases, test-retest series were undertaken between the trainee and measurements obtained by the author or senior trainees. Trainees were obstetricians/ gynaecologists in training (n = 4), obstetricians/ gynaecologists or subspecialty trainees (n = 13), medical students (n = 1) and physiotherapists (n = 2). A total of 58 repeatability series were analysed, obtained between days 2 and 15 of training. When second or third retest series were necessary because of suboptimal initial results, there always was improvement in repeatability except for one series in one individual. Satisfactory repeatability (ICC >0.7) was achieved by all trainees for all tested parameters. Training lasted from 3–15 days, with means between 4 and 5.8 days. The assessment of commonly used pelvic floor ultrasound parameters can generally be taught to an acceptable standard of repeatability within one week.