Comparison of the anogenital distance and anthropometry of the perineum in patients with and without pelvic organ prolapse

Abstract

ObjectivesTo determine whether there are differences in the anthropometric measures of the perineum for women with symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse who are candidates for surgery, with or without urinary incontinence, and for patients without pelvic floor dysfunction. The main objective was to measure the anogenital distance in its 2 variants: anoclitoral and anofourchette. The anogenital distance appears to be determined prenatally and is influenced by the intrauterine hormonal environment. The secondary objective was to measure the length of the genital hiatus, the perineal body and the distance between the 2 ischial tuberosities. Material and methodsAn observational case–control study was conducted with 58 patients. The cases (n=22) were patients with stages >II 2 in the Baden–Walker classification system. The controls were patients with normal pelvic floors. Measurements were performed with a digital caliper. The patients’ tocogynecological history, lifestyle habits and risk factors were recorded. ResultsThe case patients had a significantly shorter anogenital anofourchette distance than that of the control patients (p=0.001), a significantly longer anogenital anoclitoral distance than the control patients (p=0.0001) and a significantly longer genital hiatus length than the control patients (p=0.02). ConclusionsThis was an observational study with a small sample. We cannot determine whether the difference in these distances are caused by or are the result of this disease. Given that the anogenital distance appears to be determined prenatally, we question whether this changed distance could be a risk factor for developing pelvic floor dysfunction.