Literature DB >> 18212193

MR defecography: prospective comparison of two rectal enema compositions.

Alina E Solopova1, Franc H Hetzer, Borut Marincek, Dominik Weishaupt.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare intraindividually two rectal enema compositions in MR defecography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients underwent MR defecography twice on a 0.5-T open-configuration system in the sitting position. During the first imaging session, MR defecography was performed with a rectal enema consisting of potato starch mixed with gadolinium (PS group). During the second session, the enema consisted of ultrasound gel mixed with gadolinium (US group). The imaging protocol consisted of midsagittal T1-weighted gradient-recalled echo MR images obtained at rest, at maximal sphincter contraction, at straining, and during defecation. All images were analyzed quantitatively by measuring the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and reviewed by three independent observers with regard to the visibility of pelvic floor abnormalities and the extent of those abnormalities.
RESULTS: The CNR values in the PS group (mean +/- SD, 167.49 +/- 44.4) were significantly higher than those obtained in the US group (150.2 +/- 37.8) (p < 0.05). The visibility scores for anterior rectoceles and intussusceptions were higher in the PS group than in the US group (mean visibility scores: PS group, 2.8 +/- 0.42 and 2.6 +/- 0.56, respectively; US group, 2.3 +/- 0.77 and 2.2 +/- 0.74, respectively). The size and the number of incompletely emptying anterior rectoceles were higher in the PS group.
CONCLUSION: Ultrasound gel and potato starch provide good contrast and depiction of relevant pelvic floor abnormalities. However, the visibility of pelvic floor abnormalities and extent of those abnormalities depend on the composition of the rectal enema. In particular, the size and degree of anterior rectocele evacuation and intussusception size are often underestimated when ultrasound gel is used for rectal enema.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18212193     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.07.2906

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  6 in total

Review 1.  Descending perineum syndrome: a review of the presentation, diagnosis, and management.

Authors:  Zaid Chaudhry; Christopher Tarnay
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 2.894

2.  MR defecography in patients with dyssynergic defecation: spectrum of imaging findings and diagnostic value.

Authors:  C S Reiner; R Tutuian; A E Solopova; D Pohl; B Marincek; D Weishaupt
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Rectocele and intussusception: is there any coherence in symptoms or additional pelvic floor disorders?

Authors:  R Hausammann; T Steffen; D Weishaupt; U Beutner; F H Hetzer
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2009-03-14       Impact factor: 3.781

4.  Prospective Comparison between two different magnetic resonance defecography techniques for evaluating pelvic floor disorders: air-balloon versus gel for rectal filling.

Authors:  Francesca Maccioni; Najwa Al Ansari; Valeria Buonocore; Fabrizio Mazzamurro; Marileda Indinnimeo; Massimo Mongardini; Carlo Catalano
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 5.  Anorectal Physiology Testing for Prolapse-What Tests are Necessary?

Authors:  Gifty Kwakye; Lillias Holmes Maguire
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2020-09-04

Review 6.  Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvic floor-a pictorial review.

Authors:  João Cunha Salvador; Mónica Portela Coutinho; José Marques Venâncio; Bárbara Viamonte
Journal:  Insights Imaging       Date:  2019-01-28
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.