PURPOSE: This study prospectively compared the diagnostic capabilities of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with conventional defecography (CD) in outlet obstruction syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen consecutive patients with clinical symptoms of outlet obstruction underwent pelvic MR examination. The MR imaging protocol included static T2-weighted fast spin-echo (FSE) images in the sagittal, axial and coronal planes; dynamic midsagittal T2-weighted single-shot (SS)-FSE and fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition (FIESTA) cine images during contraction, rest, straining and defecation. MR images (including and then excluding the evacuation phase) were compared with CD, which is considered the reference standard. RESULTS: Comparison between CD and MR with evacuation phase (MRWEP) showed no significant differences in sphincter hypotonia, dyssynergia, rectocele or rectal prolapse and significant differences in descending perineum. Comparison between CD and MR without evacuation phase (MRWOEP) showed no significant differences in sphincter hypotonia, dyssynergia or enterocele but significant differences in rectocele, rectal prolapse and descending perineum. Comparison between MRWEP and MRWOEP showed no significant differences in sphincter hypotonia, dyssynergia, enterocele or descending perineum but significant differences in rectocele, rectal prolapse, peritoneocele, cervical cystoptosis and hysteroptosis. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging provides morphological and functional study of pelvic floor structures and may offer an imaging tool complementary to CD in multicompartment evaluation of the pelvis. An evacuation phase is mandatory.
PURPOSE: This study prospectively compared the diagnostic capabilities of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with conventional defecography (CD) in outlet obstruction syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen consecutive patients with clinical symptoms of outlet obstruction underwent pelvic MR examination. The MR imaging protocol included static T2-weighted fast spin-echo (FSE) images in the sagittal, axial and coronal planes; dynamic midsagittal T2-weighted single-shot (SS)-FSE and fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition (FIESTA) cine images during contraction, rest, straining and defecation. MR images (including and then excluding the evacuation phase) were compared with CD, which is considered the reference standard. RESULTS: Comparison between CD and MR with evacuation phase (MRWEP) showed no significant differences in sphincter hypotonia, dyssynergia, rectocele or rectal prolapse and significant differences in descending perineum. Comparison between CD and MR without evacuation phase (MRWOEP) showed no significant differences in sphincter hypotonia, dyssynergia or enterocele but significant differences in rectocele, rectal prolapse and descending perineum. Comparison between MRWEP and MRWOEP showed no significant differences in sphincter hypotonia, dyssynergia, enterocele or descending perineum but significant differences in rectocele, rectal prolapse, peritoneocele, cervical cystoptosis and hysteroptosis. CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging provides morphological and functional study of pelvic floor structures and may offer an imaging tool complementary to CD in multicompartment evaluation of the pelvis. An evacuation phase is mandatory.
Authors: G Zonca; A De Thomatis; R Marchesini; S Sala; B Bozzini; G Cozzi; M Milella; M Salvetti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 1997-11 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Katharina M Bertschinger; Frank H Hetzer; Justus E Roos; Karl Treiber; Borut Marincek; Paul R Hilfiker Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elizabeth M Hecht; Vivian S Lee; Teerath Peter Tanpitukpongse; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli; Samson Wong; Nirit Rosenblum; Jamie A Kanofsky; Genevieve L Bennett Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 3.959
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
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
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
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