Comparison between transperineal ultrasound and digital dectection of levator ani trauma : can we improve the odds?

Aims To investigate the predictive ability of four digital assessment parameters to detect levator ani (LA) muscle defects (avulsion injury) and compare these to transperineal tomographic ultrasound images. Methods This was an observational study imbedded in a larger quasi-experimental cohort study for women with urinary incontinence. Seventy-two women, ≥60 years who had attended or were going to attend physiotherapy for treatment of urinary incontinence, were included in the study. Inclusion criteria from the parent study were symptoms of stress, urge or both types of urinary incontinence. The predictive ability of the following digital parameters: direct palpation of a discontinuity of the LA muscle from insertion on the pubic ramus; palpation of the distance between the muscle insertion sites; palpation of LA strength; palpation of LA tone, were analyzed against findings from tomographic transperineal ultrasound images. Correlation between methods was measured using Cohen's kappa for each of the individual parameters. Results Seventeen women (24%) presented with a complete or partial avulsion of the puborectalis muscle as diagnosed with tomographic ultrasound imaging. Nine women (13%) had complete avulsions, one of which was bilateral. The predictive ability of the digital assessment parameters varied from poor (k = 0.187, 95% CI [0.02–0.36]) to moderate (k = 0.569, 95% CI [0.31–0.83]). The new parameter of ‘width between insertion sites’ performed best. Conclusions Adding the parameter of “width between insertion sites” appears to enhance our ability to detect avulsion of the levator ani (LA) muscle by digital examination however it does not distinguish between unilateral or bilateral avulsion.

L'éthique et sa place dans la nature

Une des questions centrales de la métaéthique est celle de savoir si les propriétés morales sont des propriétés naturelles ou non-naturelles. Ce mémoire fait valoir que nous ferions bien de remettre en question une constellation d’arguments en faveur du non-naturalisme moral : l’argument de la question ouverte, l’intuition normative et l’argument du gouffre. L’influent argument de la question ouverte de Moore, d’abord, ne soutient le non-naturalisme que s’il commet une pétition de principe. L’intuition normative commet ou bien le sophisme d’inférer sur la base de sa différence spécifique qu’une chose n’appartient pas à un genre donné, ou bien sous-estime la panoplie de propriétés naturelles qui possèdent les caractéristiques censées être distinctives des propriétés morales et normatives. L’argument du gouffre, quant à lui, sous-estime l’ubiquité du fossé logique et conceptuel censé marquer une discontinuité métaphysique profonde entre les domaines normatif et naturel.