Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

© 2019, The International Urogynecological Association. Introduction and hypothesis: Three-dimensional exoanal ultrasound imaging of the anal sphincter may be obtained transperineally with a convex probe, or at the introitus with a transvaginal probe. We hypothesised that introital acquisition would yield better quality and more reproducible evaluation. Methods: We acquired three 3D volumes of the anal sphincter (one transperineal transverse with a 4- to 8-MHz convex probe and two introital with a 5- to 9-MHz probe in transverse and mid-sagittal view) in 20 representative women attending the gynaecology clinic. Each 3D dataset was anonymised and hence blinded for clinical data and for acquisition method. Images were analysed off-line by two expert specifically trained ultrasonographers in a random order to assess image quality, sphincter integrity and sphincteric measurements. We assessed the intra- and interrater agreement by the Cohen’s kappa (κ) and by the intraclass correlation coefficient for categorical and continuous variables respectively. Results: The mid-sagittal introital acquisition had most inconclusive images owing to unsatisfactory quality, on which raters agreed (К = 0.80). Subsequently, agreement in the anal sphincter evaluation between transverse introital and transperineal acquisitions was compared. Agreement on internal anal sphincter gap was excellent for both transverse introital (К = 0.87) and transperineal acquisition (К = 0.93). Agreement on external anal sphincter discontinuity was excellent for the transperineal acquisition (К = 0.87) and good for the transverse introital acquisition (К = 0.73). Intra- and interrater agreement of external and internal anal sphincteric measurements were best for transperineal acquisitions. Conclusions: In our hands, transperineal acquisition with a 4- to 8-MHz probe performed better than introital acquisition with a 5- to 9-MHz probe in the assessment of the anal sphincter complex.

Original publication




Journal article


International Urogynecology Journal

Publication Date