Scholarlink

Purpose <p>To explore the application value of multiparameter quantitative MRI in evaluating pelvic floor muscle function in POP patients.</p> Methods <p>Sixty-nine POP patients and 32 healthy controls (HC) were prospectively enrolled and categorized into POP <sub>I–II</sub> (<i>n</i> = 32) and POP <sub>III–IV</sub> (<i>n</i> = 37) groups based on POP-Q. All participants underwent conventional pelvic floor MRI, Q-Dixon, and T1-mapping. The PDFF and native T1 values of pelvic floor muscles were measured. Between-group differences in PDFF and T1 values were compared.</p> Results <p>No significant differences were found in the PDFF and native T1 values of the bilateral OIM, OEM, PEC, and COC muscles (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.05). The PDFF of the levator ani muscle (LAM) was significantly higher in the POP <sub>III–IV</sub> group than in the POP <sub>I–II</sub> and HC groups (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). The PDFF of the coccygeus muscle (COC) was higher in both POP groups than in HCs (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Native T1 values of LAM and COC were lower in both POP groups compared to HCs (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001). Combined PDFF and T1 values of LAM and COC showed good diagnostic performance for POP severity (AUCs 0.826 and 0.841). Interobserver agreement was excellent (ICC 0.807–0.920).</p> Conclusion <p>PDFF and native T1 values are valuable biomarkers for assessing pelvic floor muscle dysfunction and stratifying disease severity in patients with POP.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Multi-parametric Quantitative MRI to Evaluate the Value of Pelvic Floor Muscle Dysfunction in POP Patients

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月17日

查看全文
  • XiaoYing Wang,
  • Wei Guo,
  • Meng Wang,
  • BaoGen Zhao,
  • HongLiang Hu,
  • Lu Zhang,
  • Yong Wang,
  • Li Zhang

摘要

Purpose

To explore the application value of multiparameter quantitative MRI in evaluating pelvic floor muscle function in POP patients.

Methods

Sixty-nine POP patients and 32 healthy controls (HC) were prospectively enrolled and categorized into POP I–II (n = 32) and POP III–IV (n = 37) groups based on POP-Q. All participants underwent conventional pelvic floor MRI, Q-Dixon, and T1-mapping. The PDFF and native T1 values of pelvic floor muscles were measured. Between-group differences in PDFF and T1 values were compared.

Results

No significant differences were found in the PDFF and native T1 values of the bilateral OIM, OEM, PEC, and COC muscles (P > 0.05). The PDFF of the levator ani muscle (LAM) was significantly higher in the POP III–IV group than in the POP I–II and HC groups (P < 0.001). The PDFF of the coccygeus muscle (COC) was higher in both POP groups than in HCs (P < 0.001). Native T1 values of LAM and COC were lower in both POP groups compared to HCs (P < 0.001). Combined PDFF and T1 values of LAM and COC showed good diagnostic performance for POP severity (AUCs 0.826 and 0.841). Interobserver agreement was excellent (ICC 0.807–0.920).

Conclusion

PDFF and native T1 values are valuable biomarkers for assessing pelvic floor muscle dysfunction and stratifying disease severity in patients with POP.