ACADEMIC AND RESEARCH PEER-REVIEWED MEDICAL JOURNALISSN 1727-2378
Ru
En

Current Paradoxes in Perineology

DOI:10.31550/1727-2378-2019-162-7-46-51
Bibliography link: Toktar L.R., Aryutin D.G., Volkova S.V., Lologaeva M.S., Karimova G.A. Current Paradoxes in Perineology. Doctor.Ru. 2019; 7(162): 46–51. DOI: 10.31550/1727-2378-2019-162-7-46-51
Current Paradoxes in Perineology
18 July 00:00

Objective of the Review: To systematize controversial aspects of modern perineology and concepts related to pelvic organ prolapse.

Key Points: An increased number of paradoxical facts, opinions, and solutions related to perineology have accumulated, including didactic, epidemiological, economical, anatomical, herniological, tactical, evolutionary, obstetrical, morphological, and other paradoxes.

Many studies of female pelvic organ prolapse have two weak points, which hinder researchers in their attempts to eliminate these paradoxes. One is the view of the pelvic floor as a static structure. It is well known that the pelvic floor muscles contract reflexively like a trampoline in response to any increase in the intra-abdominal pressure, meaning that they are never at rest. Researchers, however, focus their attention primarily on the connective tissue of the pelvic fasciae and ligaments, while muscular tissue, the main functional component of the pelvic floor, has been studied in only a few publications.

The second weak point of modern research is the fact that specialists look at prolapse at only one point in time, which, unfortunately, is the end-point of its evolution. The practice of resorting to surgery only in case of severe prolapse, and not seeking preventive surgical methods, has confused researchers even more. Specialists obviously need to evaluate morphological, immunohistochemical, and other ultrastructural tissue characteristics in the prodromal stage of pelvic floor incompetence and vaginal looseness, in the absence of symptoms of prolapse, and compare the data they obtain with findings from noninvasive diagnostic procedures.

Conclusion: By understanding the early forms of prolapse, rather than only looking at severe cases in which irreversible decompensatory changes in tissues and anatomical interrelationships have already occurred, researchers will be able to attempt to suggest a reasonable explanation of the pathogenesis of pelvic organ descent and resolve the existing paradoxes in perineology.

L.R. Toktar — Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; 6 Miklouho-Maclay St., Moscow, Russian Federation 117198. E-mail: toktarly@yandex.ru

D.G. Aryutin — Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; 6 Miklouho-Maclay St., Moscow, Russian Federation 117198. N.E. Bauman City Clinical Hospital No. 29, Moscow City Department of Health; 2 Gospitalnaya Square, Moscow, Russian Federation 111020. eLIBRARY.RU SPIN: 8235-5040. E-mail: aryutin@mail.ru

S.V. Volkova — Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; 6 Miklouho-Maclay St., Moscow, Russian Federation 117198. E-mail: dr-s.volkova@yandex.ru

M.S. Lologaeva — Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; 6 Miklouho-Maclay St., Moscow, Russian Federation 117198. N.E. Bauman City Clinical Hospital No. 29, Moscow City Department of Health; 2 Gospitalnaya Square, Moscow, Russian Federation 111020. E-mail: willin.41@mail.ru

G.A. Karimova — Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia; 6 Miklouho-Maclay St., Moscow, Russian Federation 117198. N.E. Bauman City Clinical Hospital No. 29, Moscow City Department of Health; 2 Gospitalnaya Square, Moscow, Russian Federation 111020. E-mail: guliwka@gmail.com

Current Paradoxes in Perineology
18 July 00:00
LITERATURE
  1. Токтар Л.Р. Женская пролаптология: от патогенеза к эффективности профилактики и лечения. Журн. акушерства и гинекологии. 2017; 3: 98–107. [Toktar L.R. Zhenskaya prolaptologiya: ot patogeneza k ehffektivnosti profilaktiki i lecheniya. Zhurn. akusherstva i ginekologii. 2017; 3: 98–107. (in Russian)]
  2. Радзинский В.Е., Шалаев О.Н., Дурандин Ю.М., Семятов С.М., Токтар Л.Р., Салимова Л.Я., ред. Перионеология: учебное пособие. М.: РУДН; 2008: 3 [Radzinskiy V.E., Shalaev O.N., Durandin Yu.M., Semyatov S.M., Toktar L.R., Salimova L.Ya., red. Perineologiya: uchebnoe posobie. M.: RUDN; 2008: 3. (in Russian)]
  3. Радзинский В.Е., ред. Нехирургический дизайн промежнос­ти. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2017. 250 с. [Radzinskij V.E., red. Nekhirurgicheskij dizajn promezhnosti. М.: GEOTAR-Media; 2017. 250 s. (in Russian)]
  4. Радзинский В.Е., ред. Перинеология: коллективная монография. М.: РУДН; 2010. 372 с. [Radzinskij V.E., red. Perineologiya: kollektivnaya monografiya. M.: RUDN; 2010. 372 s. (in Russian)]
  5. Luber K.M., Boero S., Choe J.Y. The demographics of pelvic floor disorders: current observations and future projections. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2001; 184(7): 1496–501.
  6. Dieter A.A., Wilkins M.F., Wu J.M. Epidemiological trends and future care needs for pelvic floor disorders. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 27(5): 380–4. DOI: 10.1097/GCO.0000000000000200
  7. Wu J.M., Vaughan C.P., Goode P.S., Redden D.T., Burgio K.L., Richter H.E. et al. Prevalence and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women. Obstet. Gynecol. 2014; 123(1): 141–8. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000057
  8. Iglesia C.B., Smithling K.R. Pelvic organ prolapse. Am. Fam. Physician. 2017; 96(3): 179–85.
  9. Савельева Г.М., Сухих Г.Т., Серов В.Н., Радзинский В.Е., Манухин И.Б., ред. Гинекология: национальное руководство. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2017: 597–8. [Saveleva G.M., Suhih G.T., Serov V.N., Radzinskij V.E., Manuhin I.B., red. Ginekologiya: nacionalnoe rukovodstvo. M.: GEOTAR-Media; 2017: 597–8. (in Russian)]
  10. Wu J.M., Hundley A.F., Fulton R.G., Myers E.R. Forecasting the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women: 2010 to 2050. Obstet. Gynecol. 2009; 114(6): 1278–83. DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c2ce96
  11. Lua L.L., Vicente E.D., Pathak P., Lybbert D., Dandolu V. Comparative analysis of overall cost and rate of healthcare utilization among apical prolapse procedures. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2017; 28(10): 1481–8. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-017-3324-5
  12. Радзинский В.Е., Фукс А.М., ред. Гинекология: учебник. М.: ГЭОТАР-Медиа; 2019. 1104 с. [Radzinskij V.E., Fuks A.M., red. Ginekologiya: uchebnik. M.: GEOTAR-Media; 2019. 1104 s. (in Russian)]
  13. Reiner C.S., Williamson T., Winklehner T., Lisse S., Fink D., DeLancey J.O.L. et al. The 3D Pelvic Inclination Correction System (PICS): a universally applicable coordinate system for isovolumetric imaging measurements, tested in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Comput. Med. Imaging Graph. 2017; 59: 28–37. DOI: 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2017.05.005
  14. Wang X., Ren M., Liu Y., Zhang T., Tian J. Perineal ultrasound versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) detection for evaluation of pelvic diaphragm in resting state. Med. Sci. Monit. 2018; 24: 4449–54. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.906648
  15. Notten K.J.B., Vergeldt T.F.M., van Kuijk S.M.J., Weemhoff M., Roovers J.W.R. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical implications of translabial ultrasound for the assessment of levator ani defects and levator ani biometry in women with pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2017; 23(6): 420–8. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000402
  16. Kasyan G.R., Tupikina N.V., Pushkar D.Y. A new method for the evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse in women using a three-dimensional optic scanner. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2016; 27(7): 1081–6. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-016-2948-1
  17. Zhu Y.C., Deng S.H., Jiang Q., Zhang Y. Correlation between delivery mode and pelvic organ prolapse evaluated by four-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasonography. Med. Sci. Monit. 2018; 24: 7891–7. DOI: 10.12659/MSM.911343
  18. Masteling M., Ashton-Miller J.A., DeLancey J.O.L. Technique development and measurement of cross-sectional area of the pubovisceral muscle on MRI scans of living women. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2018. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3704-5. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00192-018-3704-5 (дата обращения — 14.04.2019).
  19. Kearney R., Sawhney R., DeLancey J.O.L. Levator ani muscle anatomy evaluated by origin-insertion pairs. Obstet. Gynecol. 2004; 104(1): 168–73. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000128906.61529.6b
  20. Nyangoh Timoh K., Bessede T., Zaitouna M., Peschaud F., Chevallier J.M., Fauconnier A. et al. Anatomy of the levator ani muscle and implications for obstetrics and gynaecology. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. 2015; 43(1): 84–90. DOI: 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2014.11.015
  21. Синельников Р.Д., Синельников Я.Р., Синельников А.Я. Атлас анатомии человека: в 4 томах. М.: Новая волна; 2018. Т. 2. 272 с. [Sinelnikov R.D., Sinelnikov Ya.R., Sinelnikov A.Ya. Atlas anatomii cheloveka: v 4 tomah. M.: Novaya volna; 2018. T. 2. 272 s. (in Russian)]
  22. Margulies R.U., Hsu Y., Kearney R., Stein T., Umek W.H., DeLancey J.O.L. Appearance of the levator ani muscle subdivisions in magnetic resonance images. Obstet. Gynecol. 2006; 107(5): 1064–9. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000214952.28605.e8
  23. Kim J., Betschart C., Ramanah R., Ashton-Miller J.A., DeLancey J.O.L. Anatomy of the pubovisceral muscle origin: macroscopic and microscopic findings within the injury zone. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2015; 34(8): 774–80. DOI: 10.1002/nau.22649
  24. Fan S.X., Wang F.M., Lin L.S., Song Y.F. Re-treatments of recurrence after pelvic floor repair surgery. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2017; 52(6): 374–8. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0529-567X.2017.06.004
  25. Maher C., Feiner B., Baessler K., Schmid C. Surgical management of pelvic organ prolapse in women. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2013; 4: CD004014. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004014.pub5
  26. Chung S.H., Kim W.B. Various approaches and treatments for pelvic organ prolapse in women. J. Menopausal. Med. 2018; 24(3): 155–62. DOI: 10.6118/jmm.2018.24.3.155
  27. Khan A.A., Eilber K.S., Clemens J.Q., Wu N., Pashos C.L., Anger J.T. Trends in management of pelvic organ prolapse among female Medicare beneficiaries. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 212(4): 463.e1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.10.025
  28. Miklos J.R., Chinthakanan O., Moore R.D., Karp D.R., Nogueiras G.M., Davila G.W. Indications and complications associated with the remo­val of 506 pieces of vaginal mesh used in pelvic floor reconstruction: a multicenter study. Int. Surg. Technol. Int. 2016; 29: 185–9.
  29. Unger C.A., Barber M.D. Vaginal mesh in pelvic reconstructive surgery: controversies, current use, and complications. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2015; 58(4): 740–53. DOI: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000148
  30. Caveney M., Haddad D., Matthews C., Badlani G., Mirzazadeh M. Short-term complications associated with the use of transvaginal mesh in pelvic floor reconstructive surgery: results from a multi-institutional prospectively maintained dataset. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2017; 36(8): 2044–8. DOI: 10.1002/nau.23231
  31. Morling J.R., McAllister D.A., Agur W., Fischbacher C.M., Glazener C.M., Guerrero K. et al. Adverse events after first, single, mesh and non-mesh surgical procedures for stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse in Scotland, 1997–2016: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017; 389(10069): 629–40. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32572-7
  32. Urogynecologic surgical mesh: update on the safety and effectiveness of transvaginal placement for pelvic organ prolapse. FDA, 2011. URL: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/safety/alertsandnotices/ucm262760.pdf (дата обращения — 14.04.2019).
  33. Murphy M., Holzberg A., van Raalte H., Kohli N., Goldman H.B., Lucente V. et al. Time to rethink: an evidence-based response from pelvic surgeons to the FDA Safety Communication: “UPDATE on serious complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh for pelvic organ prolapse”. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2012; 23(1): 5–9. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-011-1581-2
  34. Derbyshire V. Vaginal mesh implants: hundreds sue NHS over “barbaric” treatment. BBC News. 2017 Apr 18. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-39567240 (дата обращения — 14.04.2019).
  35. Meriwether K.V., Balk E.M., Antosh D.D., Olivera C.K., Kim-Fine S., Murphy M. et al. Uterine-preserving surgeries for the repair of pelvic organ prolapse: a systematic review with meta-analysis and clinical practice guidelines. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2019; 30(4): 505–22. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-019-03876-2
  36. Takacs E.B., Kreder K.J. Sacrocolpopexy: surgical technique, outcomes, and complications. Curr. Urol. Rep. 2016; 17(12): 90. DOI: 10.1007/s11934-016-0643-x
  37. Iancu G., Doumouchtsis S.K. A historical perspective and evolution of our knowledge on the cardinal ligament. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2014; 33(4): 380–6. DOI: 10.1002/nau.22421
  38. Петрос П. Женское тазовое дно. Функции, дисфункции и их лечение в соответствии c Интегральной теорией. М.: МЕДпресс-информ; 2017. 400 с. [Petros P. Zhenskoe tazovoe dno. Funktsii, disfunktsii i ikh lechenie v sootvetstvii c Integral'noi teoriei. M.: MEDpress-inform; 2017. 400 s. (in Russian)]
  39. Babayi M., Azghani M.R., Hajebrahimi S., Berghmans B. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the pelvic organ prolapse: a parametric biomechanical modeling. Neurourol. Urodyn. 2019; 38(2): 591–8. DOI: 10.1002/nau.23885
  40. Mastoroudes H., Giarenis I., Cardozo L., Srikrishna S., Vella M., Robinson D. et al. Prolapse and sexual function in women with benign joint hypermobility syndrome. BJOG. 2013; 120(2): 187–92. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.12082
  41. Epstein L.B., Graham C.A., Heit M.H. Systemic and vaginal biomechanical properties of women with normal vaginal support and pelvic organ prolapse. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2007; 197(2): 165.e1–6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2007.03.040
  42. Gyhagen M., Al-Mukhtar Othman J., Åkervall S., Nilsson I., Milsom I. The symptom of vaginal bulging in nulliparous women aged 25–64 years: a national cohort study. Int. Urogynecol. J. 2019; 30(4): 639–47. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-018-3684-5
  43. Michalec I., Tomanová M., Navrátilová M., Šimetka O., Procházka M. The risk factors for pelvic floor trauma following vaginal delivery. Ceska Gynekol. 2015; 80(1): 11–5.
  44. Li M., Shi J., Lü Q.P., Wei F.H., Gai T.Z., Feng Q. Multiple factors analysis of early postpartum pelvic floor muscles injury in regenerated parturients. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2018; 98(11): 818–22. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0376-2491.2018.11.005
  45. Chan S.S.C., Cheung R.Y.K., Lee L.L., Choy R.K.W., Chung T.K.H. Longitudinal follow-up of levator ani muscle avulsion: does a second delivery affect it? Ultrasound. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 50(1): 110–15. DOI: 10.1002/uog.16009
  46. Caudwell-Hall J., Kamisan Atan I., Guzman Rojas R., Langer S., Shek K.L., Dietz H.P. Atraumatic normal vaginal delivery: how many women get what they want? Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 219(4): 379.e1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.07.022
  47. Токтар Л.Р., Крижановская А.Н. Ранняя диагностика интранатальных травм промежности как первый шаг к решению проблемы. StatusPraesens. Гинекология, акушерство, бесплодный брак. 2012; 5(11): 61–7. [Toktar L.R., Krizhanovskaya A.N. Rannyaya diagnostika intranatal'nykh travm promezhnosti kak pervyi shag k resheniyu problemy. StatusPraesens. Ginekologiya, akusherstvo, besplodnyi brak. 2012; 5(11): 61–7. (in Russian)]
  48. Gachon B. Cesarean section and perineal protection: CNGOF Perineal Prevention and Protection in Obstetrics Guidelines. Gynecol. Obstet. Fertil. Senol. 2018; 46(12): 968–85. 10.1016/j.gofs.2018.10.030
  49. Hallock J.L., Handa V.L. The epidemiology of pelvic floor disorders and childbirth: an update. Obstet. Gynecol. Clin. North Am. 2016; 43(1): 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.ogc.2015.10.008
  50. Kow N., Ridgeway B., Kuang M., Butler R.S., Damaser M.S. Vaginal expression of LOXL1 in premenopausal and postmenopausal women with pelvic organ prolapse. Female Pelvic Med. Reconstr. Surg. 2016; 22(4): 229–35. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000251
Similar article
4 February 17:36, Obstetrics
E.Yu. Upryamova, E.V. Dulaeva, I.I. Bocharova, S.V. Novikova, A.V. Fedotova, N.V. Biryukova, T.S. Budykina
Successful Spontaneous Delivery in a patient with Fallot's Tetrad with Inhalational Sedoanalgesia with Sevoflurane (Case Study)
Doctor.Ru Gynecology Vol. 19 No. 1 (2020)
4 February 16:52, Gynecology
N.V. Zarochentseva, V.I. Krasnopolsky, L.K. Dzhidzhikhiya, N.S. Menshikova, I.I. Baranov, O.V. Rovinskaya, L.A. Ashrafyan, V.I. Kiselev
Vaginal Intraepithelial Neoplasia: Diagnostics, Treatment, and Prevention
Doctor.Ru Gynecology Vol. 19 No. 1 (2020)

Partners