Literature DB >> 19188799

Comparison of supine magnetic resonance imaging with and without rectal contrast to fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography for the diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse.

Harpreet K Pannu1, John C Scatarige, John Eng.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare supine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with and without rectal contrast, with fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography (CCP) for the diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Supine MRI and CCP studies were reviewed in 82 patients. All patients were women with an average age of 58.8 years, and the studies were done a mean of 25 days apart. Magnetic resonance imaging was performed with rectal contrast (n = 35) and without rectal contrast (n = 47). Fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography was performed with rectal (n = 82), vaginal (n = 82), small bowel (n = 81), and bladder (n = 78) contrast, and images were corrected for magnification. Each study was independently reviewed by 2 readers, and outcome variables were presence/absence of cystocele, vaginal prolapse, enterocele, sigmoidocele, and anterior rectocele. Sigmoidoceles were included with enteroceles for data analysis.
RESULTS: For the entire patient group, the prevalence of cystoceles was 89% on CCP and 80% on MRI; vaginal prolapse was 81% on CCP and 56% on MRI; enteroceles, 38% on CCP and 24% on MRI; and anterior rectoceles, 45% on CCP and 37% on MRI. There were significantly more cystoceles (odds ratio [OR] 4.7, P = 0.003), vaginal prolapses (OR 5.2, P < 0.0005), and enteroceles (OR 3.8, P< 0.0005) on CCP than on MRI. For MRI with rectal contrast versus CCP, the prevalence of cystoceles was 94% on CCP and 91% on MRI; vaginal prolapse, 74% on CCP and 70% on MRI; enteroceles, 36% on CCP and 19% on MRI; and anterior rectoceles, 51% on CCP and 59% on MRI. There was statistical significance only for enteroceles, more of which were found on CCP (OR 7.4, P = 0.003). For MRI without rectal contrast versus CCP, the prevalence of cystoceles was 85% on CCP and 72% on MRI; vaginal prolapse, 86% on CCP and 46% on MRI; enteroceles, 40% on CCP and 28% on MRI; and anterior rectoceles, 39% on CCP and 21% on MRI. There were significantly more cystoceles (OR 6.6, P = 0.003), vaginal prolapses (OR 20.8, P < 0.0005), enteroceles (OR 2.9, P = 0.015), and rectoceles (OR 4.9, P = 0.001) on CCP than on noncontrast MRI.
CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic resonance imaging without rectal contrast showed statistically fewer pelvic floor abnormalities than CCP. Except for enteroceles, MRI with rectal contrast showed statistically similar frequency of pelvic organ prolapse as CCP.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19188799     DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e318161d739

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr        ISSN: 0363-8715            Impact factor:   1.826


  9 in total

1.  Structural position of the posterior vagina and pelvic floor in women with and without posterior vaginal prolapse.

Authors:  Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Aisha Yousuf; Kindra A Larson; Dee E Fenner; John O L Delancey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 2.  Functional Disorders: Rectocele.

Authors:  W Conan Mustain
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2017-02

Review 3.  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

Review 4.  Magnetic resonance defecography versus clinical examination and fluoroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  L Ramage; C Simillis; C Yen; C Lutterodt; S Qiu; E Tan; C Kontovounisios; P Tekkis
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 3.781

5.  Dynamic MRI defecography vs. entero-colpo-cysto-defecography in the evaluation of midline pelvic floor hernias in female pelvic floor disorders.

Authors:  Salvatore Cappabianca; Alfonso Reginelli; Francesca Iacobellis; Vincenza Granata; Luigi Urciuoli; Maria Eleonora Alabiso; Graziella Di Grezia; Ines Marano; Gianluca Gatta; Roberto Grassi
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Clinical applications of pelvic floor imaging: opinion statement endorsed by the society of abdominal radiology (SAR), American Urological Association (AUA), and American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS).

Authors:  Victoria Chernyak; Joshua Bleier; Mariya Kobi; Ian Paquette; Milana Flusberg; Philippe Zimmern; Larissa V Rodriguez; Phyllis Glanc; Suzanne Palmer; Luz Maria Rodriguez; Marsha K Guess; Milena M Weinstein; Roopa Ram; Kedar Jambhekar; Gaurav Khatri
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2021-03-27

7.  Posterior vaginal prolapse shape and position changes at maximal Valsalva seen in 3-D MRI-based models.

Authors:  Jiajia Luo; Kindra A Larson; Dee E Fenner; James A Ashton-Miller; John O L DeLancey
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2012-04-24       Impact factor: 2.894

8.  Consensus definitions and interpretation templates for magnetic resonance imaging of Defecatory pelvic floor disorders : Proceedings of the consensus meeting of the pelvic floor disorders consortium of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the Society of Abdominal Radiology, the international continence society, the American Urogynecologic Society, the international Urogynecological association, and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

Authors:  Brooke H Gurland; Gaurav Khatri; Roopa Ram; Tracy L Hull; Ervin Kocjancic; Lieschen H Quiroz; Rania F El Sayed; Kedar R Jambhekar; Victoria Chernyak; Raj Mohan Paspulati; Vipul R Sheth; Ari M Steiner; Amita Kamath; S Abbas Shobeiri; Milena M Weinstein; Liliana Bordeianou
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 2.894

Review 9.  Imaging modalities for the detection of posterior pelvic floor disorders in women with obstructed defaecation syndrome.

Authors:  Isabelle Ma van Gruting; Aleksandra Stankiewicz; Ranee Thakar; Giulio A Santoro; Joanna IntHout; Abdul H Sultan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-09-23
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.