Normal values for pelvic organ descent in health nulligravid young caucasian women

Translabial ultrasound is increasingly being used for the assessment of women presenting with pelvic floor dysfunction and incontinence (1,2). However, there is little information on normal values for bladder neck descent, with the two available studies disagreeing widely (3,4). No data has so far been published on mobility of the central and posterior compartment which can now also be assessed by ultrasound (5). This study presents normal values for urethral, bladder, cervical and rectal mobility in a cohort of young, stress continent, nulliparous nonpregnant women. Methods 118 nonpregnant nulliparous Caucasian women between 18 and 23 years of age were recruited for an ongoing twin study of pelvic floor function. Translabial ultrasound assessment of pelvic organ mobility was undertaken supine and after bladder emptying (6,7). The best of at least three effective Valsalva manoeuvres was used for evaluation, with no attempts at standardization of Valsalva pressure. Parameters of anterior compartment mobility were obtained by the use of on-screen calipers; cervical and rectal descent were evaluated on printouts. All examinations were carried out under direct supervision of the first author or by personnel trained by him for at least 100 consecutive assessments. Results The median age of participants in this study was 20 (range 18- 23). Mean body mass index was 23 (range 16.9- 36.7). Of 118 women, 2 were completely unable to perform a Valsalva manoeuvre despite repeated efforts at teaching and were excluded from analysis, as were ten women who complained of urinary stress incontinence, leaving 106 datasets. Average measurements for the parameters ‘retrovesical angle at rest’ (RVA-R) and on Valsalva (RVA-S), urethral rotation, bladder neck mobility, cysto-cele descent, cervical descent and descent of the rectal ampulla are given in Table 1.

Evidence and information for health policy: a decade of change

Over the past decade or so, there has been increasing demand for greater clarity about the major causes of disease and injury, how these differentially affect populations, and how they are changing. In part, this demand has been motivated by resource constraints and a realisation that better health is possible with more informed allocation of resources. At the same time, there has been a change in the way population health and its determinants are quantified, with a much closer integration of the quantitative population sciences (such as epidemiology, demography and health economics) to strengthen and broaden the evidence base for healthcare policy.