Francesca Maccioni1, Najwa Al Ansari2, Valeria Buonocore2, Fabrizio Mazzamurro2, Marileda Indinnimeo3, Massimo Mongardini3, Carlo Catalano2. 1. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena 324, 00161, Rome, Italy. francesca.maccioni@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale Regina Elena 324, 00161, Rome, Italy. 3. Department of Surgical Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, VialeRegina Elena 324, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: to prospectively compare two rectal filling techniques for dynamic MRI of pelvic floor disorders (PFD). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-six patients with PFD underwent the two techniques during the same procedure, one based on rectal placement of a balloon-catheter filled with saline and air insufflation (air-balloon technique or AB); another based on rectal filling with 180 cc of gel (gel-filling technique or GF). The examinations were compared for assessment and staging of PFD, including rectal-descent, rectocele, cystocele, colpocele, enterocele, rectal invagination. Surgery and clinical examinations were the gold standard. RESULTS: AB showed sensitivity of 96 % for rectal descent, 100 % for both rectocele and colpocele, 86 % for rectal invagination and 100 % for enterocele; understaged 11 % of rectal descents and 19 % of rectoceles. GF showed sensitivity of 100 % for rectal descent, 91 % for rectocele, 83 % for colpocele, 100 % for rectal invagination and 73 % for enterocele; understaged 3.8 % of rectal descent and 11.5 % of rectoceles. Both techniques showed 100 % of specificity. Agreement between air-balloon and gel filling was 84 % for rectal descent, 69 % for rectocele, 88 % for rectal invagination, 84 % for enterocele, 88 % for cystocele and 92 % for colpocele. CONCLUSION: Both techniques allowed a satisfactory evaluation of PFD. The gel filling was superior for rectal invagination, the air-balloon for rectocele and anterior/middle compartment disorders. KEY POINTS: • A standardized MRI technique for assessing pelvic floor disorders is not yet established. • This study compares two MRI techniques based on different rectal filling: air-balloon versus gel. • Both MRI techniques proved to be valuable in assessing PFD, with good agreement. • Air-balloon technique is more hygienic and better tolerated than the gel-filling technique. • Gel was superior for rectal invagination, air-balloon for rectocele and uro-genital prolapses.
PURPOSE: to prospectively compare two rectal filling techniques for dynamic MRI of pelvic floor disorders (PFD). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-six patients with PFD underwent the two techniques during the same procedure, one based on rectal placement of a balloon-catheter filled with saline and air insufflation (air-balloon technique or AB); another based on rectal filling with 180 cc of gel (gel-filling technique or GF). The examinations were compared for assessment and staging of PFD, including rectal-descent, rectocele, cystocele, colpocele, enterocele, rectal invagination. Surgery and clinical examinations were the gold standard. RESULTS: AB showed sensitivity of 96 % for rectal descent, 100 % for both rectocele and colpocele, 86 % for rectal invagination and 100 % for enterocele; understaged 11 % of rectal descents and 19 % of rectoceles. GF showed sensitivity of 100 % for rectal descent, 91 % for rectocele, 83 % for colpocele, 100 % for rectal invagination and 73 % for enterocele; understaged 3.8 % of rectal descent and 11.5 % of rectoceles. Both techniques showed 100 % of specificity. Agreement between air-balloon and gel filling was 84 % for rectal descent, 69 % for rectocele, 88 % for rectal invagination, 84 % for enterocele, 88 % for cystocele and 92 % for colpocele. CONCLUSION: Both techniques allowed a satisfactory evaluation of PFD. The gel filling was superior for rectal invagination, the air-balloon for rectocele and anterior/middle compartment disorders. KEY POINTS: • A standardized MRI technique for assessing pelvic floor disorders is not yet established. • This study compares two MRI techniques based on different rectal filling: air-balloon versus gel. • Both MRI techniques proved to be valuable in assessing PFD, with good agreement. • Air-balloon technique is more hygienic and better tolerated than the gel-filling technique. • Gel was superior for rectal invagination, air-balloon for rectocele and uro-genital prolapses.
Entities:
Keywords:
Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging; MR defecography; Pelvic floor disorders; Pelvic organ prolapse; Rectal contrast agents
Authors: Courtney A Woodfield; Saravanan Krishnamoorthy; Brittany S Hampton; Jeffrey M Brody Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
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