Literature DB >> 10194705

Pelvic floor descent in females: comparative study of colpocystodefecography and dynamic fast MR imaging.

D Vanbeckevoort1, L Van Hoe, R Oyen, E Ponette, D De Ridder, J Deprest.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare fast dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with colpocystodefecography (CCD) in the evaluation of pelvic floor descent in women. Thirty-five women with clinical evidence of pelvic floor descent were studied. A fast single-shot MR sequence was performed in the supine position during pelvic floor relaxation and during maximal pelvic strain. On the same day, a dynamic CCD was performed with the patient seated on a stool-chair. The degree of descent of the bladder, vagina, and anorectal junction was evaluated as the vertical distance between the pubococcygeal line and the bladder base, the vaginal vault, and the anorectal junction, respectively. A bulge of more than 3 cm measured as the distance between the extended line of the anterior border of the anal canal and the tip of the rectocele was interpreted as a rectocele. MRI was compared with CCD during maximal pelvic strain (CCD 1) and during voiding and defecation (CCD II). CCD was considered as the gold standard. Compared with clinical examination, CCD I showed a larger number of involved compartments, except for the middle compartment. CCD II was superior to clinical examination in all cases. In comparison with CCD I and especially CCD II, MRI had a lower sensitivity, especially for the anterior and middle compartment. Even four enteroceles seen on CCD II were not detected by MRI. When CCD I and CCD II were compared, a cystocele, a vaginal vault prolapse, an enterocele, and a rectocele were more readily seen on CCD II than with CCD I. When compared with CCD, supine dynamic MRI is unreliable, especially in the anterior and middle compartment. Even in the detection of enteroceles CCD was superior to MRI. In general, the best results with MRI can be expected for evaluation of the rectum.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10194705     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199903)9:3<373::aid-jmri2>3.0.co;2-h

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging        ISSN: 1053-1807            Impact factor:   4.813


  26 in total

Review 1.  Rectocele: pathogenesis and surgical management.

Authors:  A P Zbar; A Lienemann; H Fritsch; M Beer-Gabel; M Pescatori
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2003-03-29       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 2.  [Differential diagnosis in descending perineum syndrome].

Authors:  O Schwandner; F Poschenrieder; H-B Gehl; H-P Bruch
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2004-09       Impact factor: 0.955

3.  Pelvic floor imaging: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and conventional defecography in studying outlet obstruction syndrome.

Authors:  P V Foti; R Farina; G Riva; M Coronella; E Fisichella; S Palmucci; A Racalbuto; G Politi; G C Ettorre
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2012-06-28       Impact factor: 3.469

4.  Levator plate angle in women with pelvic organ prolapse compared to women with normal support using dynamic MR imaging.

Authors:  Yvonne Hsu; Aimee Summers; Hero K Hussain; Kenneth E Guire; John O L Delancey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2006-03-31       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 5.  A systematic review of clinical studies on dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: the use of reference lines and anatomical landmarks.

Authors:  Suzan R Broekhuis; Jurgen J Fütterer; Jelle O Barentsz; Mark E Vierhout; Kirsten B Kluivers
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct       Date:  2009-03-07

Review 6.  Role of conventional radiology and MRi defecography of pelvic floor hernias.

Authors:  Alfonso Reginelli; Graziella Di Grezia; Gianluca Gatta; Francesca Iacobellis; Claudia Rossi; Melchiore Giganti; Francesco Coppolino; Luca Brunese
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 2.102

7.  Reproducibility of dynamic MR imaging pelvic measurements: a multi-institutional study.

Authors:  Mark E Lockhart; Julia R Fielding; Holly E Richter; Linda Brubaker; Caryl G Salomon; Wen Ye; Christiane M Hakim; Clifford Y Wai; Alan H Stolpen; Anne M Weber
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Magnetic resonance defecography versus videodefecography in the study of obstructed defecation syndrome: Is videodefecography still the test of choice after 50 years?

Authors:  G P Martín-Martín; J García-Armengol; J V Roig-Vila; A Espí-Macías; V Martínez-Sanjuán; M Mínguez-Pérez; M Á Lorenzo-Liñán; C Mulas-Fernández; F X González-Argenté
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 3.781

9.  Dynamic MRI of the pelvic floor: comparison of performance in supine vs left lateral body position.

Authors:  Khoschy Schawkat; Bettina Pfister; Helen Parker; Henriette Heinrich; Borna K Barth; Dominik Weishaupt; Mark Fox; Caecilia S Reiner
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-18       Impact factor: 3.039

10.  Treatment of obstructed defecation.

Authors:  C Neal Ellis
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2005-05
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.