Abstract：
Measurements of levator bowl volume using advanced imaging, may be predictive of pelvic floor muscle function. The aim of this study was to compare the volume of the levator bowl using both magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and endovaginal ultrasound (EVU) of healthy asymptomatic women.
All participants underwent a comprehensive interview including completion of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-20 questionnaire, pelvic examination with a pelvic organ prolapse quantification evaluation, MRI, and EVU. The pelvic floor was segmented using Slicer and the MRI segmentations were trimmed using two methods: soft-tissue landmarks and the field of view (FOV) of the ultrasound volume. The levator bowl volume of the 3D segmented shapes was measured using Blender\'s 3D printing toolkit. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilks test and comparisons were made using self-paired t tests.
The final analysis included 19 patients. Levator bowl volume measured via MRI was larger than that measured in EVU (46.1 ± 7.9 cm3 vs 27.4 ± 5.9 cm3, p<0.001). Reducing the FOV of the MRI to that of EVU caused the MRI volume to be much closer to the EVU volume (35.5 ± 3.3 cm3 vs 27.4 ± 5.9 cm3, p<0.001); however, it remained significantly larger.
Levator bowl volume measured using MRI was larger than that measured using EVU no matter the method of delineation of the levator muscles. Although EVU is safe, cheap, and easy to perform, it captures a smaller volume of levator bowel than MRI.
All participants underwent a comprehensive interview including completion of the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory Questionnaire-20 questionnaire, pelvic examination with a pelvic organ prolapse quantification evaluation, MRI, and EVU. The pelvic floor was segmented using Slicer and the MRI segmentations were trimmed using two methods: soft-tissue landmarks and the field of view (FOV) of the ultrasound volume. The levator bowl volume of the 3D segmented shapes was measured using Blender\'s 3D printing toolkit. Normality was tested using the Shapiro-Wilks test and comparisons were made using self-paired t tests.
The final analysis included 19 patients. Levator bowl volume measured via MRI was larger than that measured in EVU (46.1 ± 7.9 cm3 vs 27.4 ± 5.9 cm3, p<0.001). Reducing the FOV of the MRI to that of EVU caused the MRI volume to be much closer to the EVU volume (35.5 ± 3.3 cm3 vs 27.4 ± 5.9 cm3, p<0.001); however, it remained significantly larger.
Levator bowl volume measured using MRI was larger than that measured using EVU no matter the method of delineation of the levator muscles. Although EVU is safe, cheap, and easy to perform, it captures a smaller volume of levator bowel than MRI.
摘要：
目的：使用高级成像技术测量提肌碗体积，可预测盆底肌肉功能。这项研究的目的是使用健康无症状女性的磁共振成像（MRI）和阴道内超声（EVU）比较提肌碗的体积。
方法：所有参与者都接受了全面的访谈，包括完成盆底窘迫调查问卷-20问卷，骨盆检查与盆腔器官脱垂定量评估，MRI,和EVU。使用切片器对盆底进行分割，并使用两种方法对MRI分割进行修整：软组织标志和超声体积的视野（FOV）。使用Blender的3D打印工具包测量3D分段形状的提拔器碗体积。使用Shapiro-Wilks检验检验正态性，并使用自配对t检验进行比较。
结果：最终分析包括19例患者。通过MRI测量的提下器碗体积大于在EVU中测量的体积（46.1±7.9cm3对27.4±5.9cm3，p<0.001）。将MRI的FOV减少到EVU的FOV导致MRI体积更接近EVU体积(35.5±3.3cm3vs27.4±5.9cm3,p<0.001);然而,它仍然很大。
结论：无论采用何种方法描绘提肌，使用MRI测量的提肌碗体积均大于使用EVU测量的提肌碗体积。虽然EVU是安全的，便宜,并且易于执行，它比MRI捕获更小体积的提索肠。
方法：所有参与者都接受了全面的访谈，包括完成盆底窘迫调查问卷-20问卷，骨盆检查与盆腔器官脱垂定量评估，MRI,和EVU。使用切片器对盆底进行分割，并使用两种方法对MRI分割进行修整：软组织标志和超声体积的视野（FOV）。使用Blender的3D打印工具包测量3D分段形状的提拔器碗体积。使用Shapiro-Wilks检验检验正态性，并使用自配对t检验进行比较。
结果：最终分析包括19例患者。通过MRI测量的提下器碗体积大于在EVU中测量的体积（46.1±7.9cm3对27.4±5.9cm3，p<0.001）。将MRI的FOV减少到EVU的FOV导致MRI体积更接近EVU体积(35.5±3.3cm3vs27.4±5.9cm3,p<0.001);然而,它仍然很大。
结论：无论采用何种方法描绘提肌，使用MRI测量的提肌碗体积均大于使用EVU测量的提肌碗体积。虽然EVU是安全的，便宜,并且易于执行，它比MRI捕获更小体积的提索肠。
