Hiatus and pelvic floor failure patterns in pelvic organ prolapse: a 3D MRI study of structural interactions using a level III conceptual model
Open accessAbstract
Background A large urogenital hiatus in level III results in a higher risk of developing pelvic organ prolapse after birth and failure after prolapse surgery. Deepening of the pelvic floor and downward rotation of the levator plate have also been linked to prolapse. Currently we lack data that evaluates how these measures relate to one another and to prolapse occurrence and size.Objective This study uses measurements from a published conceptual model to compare women with and without prolapse to determine the magnitude of difference between cases and controls and to quantify the interrelationships among different aspects of pelvic floor shape and structure.Study design Ninety-one women with anterior predominant prolapse and uterus in situ who had 3D MRI and 30 similar women with normal support were studied. Resting scans were used to avoid the influence of the prolapse dilating the hiatus. Measurements assessed 3 domains: hiatus size (urogenital and levator hiatus); length of the surrounding pelvic floor muscles (pubovisceral, puborectal, iliococcygeal muscles); the shelf-like posterior pelvic floor (levator plate shape, levator bowl volume), and bony pelvic dimensions. Effect sizes were calculated and principal component shape analysis performed to evaluate levator plate shape. z scores were calculated and a value greater than 1.68 (95th percentile) was considered the "failure" criterion. Frequency and severity of structural support site failure were analyzed by prolapse size.Results Resting urogenital and levator hiatal areas were 68% and 59% larger in the prolapse group compared to controls. These area enlargements were 2 to 4 times larger than the anterior-posterior dimension enlargements (urogenital hiatus 36%; levator hiatus 13%). The greatest muscle length differences between groups occurred in the pubovisceral (34%) and puborectal (25%) muscles compared to the iliococcygeal muscle (8%)-roughly half the area differences. Levator bowl volume was 63% deeper with prolapse. Urogenital hiatus and levator hiatus areas were strongly correlated with pubovisceral and puborectal muscle length (0.7-0.8), while iliococcygeal muscle length had lower correlations (0.4-0.5). Levator bowl volume correlated strongly with hiatal enlargement (0.7-0.8) and muscle length (pubovisceral and puborectal muscles), moderately so with levator plate and iliococcygeal muscle, and weakly with bony dimension. Failure frequency increased with prolapse size for urogenital hiatus anterior-posterior (P=.001) and area (P=.019). By contrast, levator hiatus area was similar for all prolapse sizes (P=.288), while levator hiatus anterior-posterior failure was more common in larger prolapses (P=.018) but with smaller percentages of failure than levator hiatus area (P<.01). Both levator bowl volume (P=.015) and levator plate (P=.045) trended toward increasing failure with larger prolapse sizes. Among women with enlarged urogenital hiatus at straining, 43% and 28% had normal urogenital hiatus anterior-posterior and area at rest, respectively.Conclusion Changes in the shape and dimensions of the pelvic floor are complex and are not captured by a single measure (such as the urogenital hiatus anterior-posterior dimension, which does not capture its lateral expansion). The failure patterns were different between small and large prolapses. Understanding why could lead to improved prevention and treatments for level III failures.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
No single factor explained the progression of pelvic floor failure, suggesting a more complex interaction between these factors.
“No single factor explained the progression of pelvic floor failure suggesting, a more complex interaction between these factors [15].”
From How Can We Improve the Assessment and Indifferent Outcomes From Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management From Conservative and Surgical Therapies? ICI‐RS 2025 (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
A 3D study of hiatus and pelvic floor failure showed a complex relationship between levator and genital hiatus areas, length of the pubovisceral and puborectalis muscles and pelvic floor shape in women with prolapse.
“A 3D study of hiatus and pelvic floor failure showed a complex relationship between levator and genital hiatus areas, length of the pubovisceral and puborectalis muscles and pelvic floor shape in women with prolapse.”
From How Can We Improve the Assessment and Indifferent Outcomes From Pelvic Organ Prolapse Management From Conservative and Surgical Therapies? ICI‐RS 2025 (2026) · cites this paper as [15]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 35 · Cited by 13
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [34]Alperin M, Cook M, Tuttle LJ, Esparza MC, Lieber RL. Impact of vaginal parity and aging on the architectural design of pelvic floor muscles. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 215(3): 312.e1– 312.e9. doi: 10.1016/J.AJOG.2016.02.033 PMC5003683 26953079 · DOI
- Authors
- DeLancey, J. O. L., Mastrovito, S., Masteling, M., Hong, C. X., Ashton-Miller, J. A., & Chen, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Agostino Gemelli University Polyclinic (IT)
- Corresponding author
- DeLancey, John O.L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2025-07
- Volume
- 233
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47.e1-47.e12
- ISSN
- 0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12178819
- OpenAlex
- W4406270008
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6
- FWCI
- 9.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/legal/tdmrep-license (tdm)
- www.elsevier.com/open-access/userlicense/1.0/ (am, 352 d)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-017 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-037 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-012 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-029 (stm-asf)
- doi.org/10.15223/policy-004 (stm-asf)
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (RC2 DK122379)
- National Institutes of Health (HUM00194834, R01 HD094954)
- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD038665, P50 HD044406)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Pelvic floor disorders treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Obstetrics and Gynecology › Uterine Myomas and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Pregnancy-related medical research
- Keywords
- pelvic organ prolapse, urogenital hiatus, levator hiatus, pubovisceral muscle, puborectal muscle, 3D MRI, pelvic dimensions
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Middle Aged, Case-Control Studies, Pelvic Floor, Imaging, Three-Dimensional, Pelvic Organ Prolapse
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review