E Poncelet1, A Rock2, J-F Quinton3, M Cosson4, N Ramdane5, L Nicolas6, A Feldmann7, J Salleron5. 1. Women's imaging center, hôpital de Valenciennes, avenue Désandrouin, 59300 Valenciennes, France. Electronic address: poncelet.edouard@gmail.com. 2. Department of urology, hôpital Saint-Philibert, GHICL, 115, rue du Grand-But, BP 249, 59462 Lomme cedex, France. 3. Division of gastroenterology, hôpital Claude-Huriez, hôpital régional universitaire de Lille, rue Michel-Polonovski, 59037 Lille cedex, France. 4. Gynecological surgery department, hôpital Jeanne-de-Flandre, regional university hospital of Lille, rue du Pr-Emile-Laine, 59037 Lille cedex, France. 5. Biostatistics department, hôpital régional universitaire de Lille, 6, rue du Professeur-Laguesse, 59045 Lille cedex, France. 6. Women's imaging center, hôpital de Valenciennes, avenue Désandrouin, 59300 Valenciennes, France. 7. Department of medical imaging, hôpital d'Armentières, 112, rue Sadi-Carnot, 59421 Armentières, France.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare conventional X-ray defecography and dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) defecography in the diagnosis of pelvic floor prolapse of the posterior compartment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty women with a mean age of 65.5 years (range: 53-72 years) who underwent X-ray defecography and MR defecography for clinical suspicion of posterior compartment dysfunction, were included in this retrospective study. X-ray defecography and dynamic MR defecography were reviewed separately for the presence of pelvic organ prolapse. The results of the combination of X-ray defecography and MR defecography were used as the standard of reference. Differences in sensitivities between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were compared using the McNemar test. RESULTS: With the gold standard, we evidenced a total of 22 cases of peritoneocele (17 elytroceles, 3 hedroceles and 2 elytroceles+hedroceles), including 15 cases of enterocele, 28 patients with rectocele including 16 that retained contrast, 37 cases of rectal prolapse, and 11 cases of anismus. The sensitivities of X-ray defecography were 90.9% for the diagnosis of peritoneocele, 71.4% for rectocele, 81.1% for rectal prolapse and 63.6% for anismus. The sensitivities of MR defecography for the same diagnoses were 86.4%, 78.6%, 62.2% and 63.6%, respectively. For all these pathologies, no significant differences between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were found. CONCLUSION: Dynamic MR defecography is equivalent to X-ray defecography for the diagnosis of abnormalities of the posterior compartment of the pelvic floor.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare conventional X-ray defecography and dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) defecography in the diagnosis of pelvic floor prolapse of the posterior compartment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty women with a mean age of 65.5 years (range: 53-72 years) who underwent X-ray defecography and MR defecography for clinical suspicion of posterior compartment dysfunction, were included in this retrospective study. X-ray defecography and dynamic MR defecography were reviewed separately for the presence of pelvic organ prolapse. The results of the combination of X-ray defecography and MR defecography were used as the standard of reference. Differences in sensitivities between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were compared using the McNemar test. RESULTS: With the gold standard, we evidenced a total of 22 cases of peritoneocele (17 elytroceles, 3 hedroceles and 2 elytroceles+hedroceles), including 15 cases of enterocele, 28 patients with rectocele including 16 that retained contrast, 37 cases of rectal prolapse, and 11 cases of anismus. The sensitivities of X-ray defecography were 90.9% for the diagnosis of peritoneocele, 71.4% for rectocele, 81.1% for rectal prolapse and 63.6% for anismus. The sensitivities of MR defecography for the same diagnoses were 86.4%, 78.6%, 62.2% and 63.6%, respectively. For all these pathologies, no significant differences between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were found. CONCLUSION: Dynamic MR defecography is equivalent to X-ray defecography for the diagnosis of abnormalities of the posterior compartment of the pelvic floor.
Authors: Dionne M Nijland; Linde T van Genugten; Karin S Dekker; Gert Jan Wagenmakers; Sicco J Braak; Angelique L Veenstra van Nieuwenhoven; Annemarie van der Steen; Anique T M Grob Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2022-04-11 Impact factor: 2.894
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