Neeraj Lalwani1, Gaurav Khatri2, Rania Farouk El Sayed3, Roopa Ram4, Kedar Jambhekar4, Victoria Chernyak5, Amita Kamath6, Sara Lewis6, Milana Flusberg7, Francis Scholz8, Hina Arif-Tiwari9, Suzanne L Palmer10, Mark E Lockhart11, Julia R Fielding2. 1. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, 1 Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA. nlalwani@wakehealth.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Cairo University Hospitals, Cairo, Egypt. 4. University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA. 5. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, The Bronx, NY, USA. 6. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, NY, USA. 8. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 11. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for magnetic resonance (MR) defecography technique based on consensus of expert radiologists on the disease-focused panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR). METHODS: An extensive questionnaire was sent to a group of 20 experts from the disease-focused panel of the SAR. The questionnaire encompassed details of technique and MRI protocol used for evaluating pelvic floor disorders. 75% agreement on questionnaire responses was defined as consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 70% of the items and provided the basis of these recommendations for MR defecography technique. There was unanimous agreement that patients should receive coaching and explanation of commands used during MR defecography, the rectum should be distended with contrast agent, and that sagittal T2-weighted images should include the entire pelvis within the field of view. The panel also agreed unanimously that IV contrast should not be used for MR defecography. Additional areas of consensus ranged in agreement from 75 to 92%. CONCLUSION: We provide a set of consensus recommendations for MR defecography technique based on a survey of expert radiologists in the SAR pelvic floor dysfunction disease-focused panel. These recommendations can be used to develop a standardized imaging protocol.
PURPOSE: To develop recommendations for magnetic resonance (MR) defecography technique based on consensus of expert radiologists on the disease-focused panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR). METHODS: An extensive questionnaire was sent to a group of 20 experts from the disease-focused panel of the SAR. The questionnaire encompassed details of technique and MRI protocol used for evaluating pelvic floor disorders. 75% agreement on questionnaire responses was defined as consensus. RESULTS: The expert panel reached consensus for 70% of the items and provided the basis of these recommendations for MR defecography technique. There was unanimous agreement that patients should receive coaching and explanation of commands used during MR defecography, the rectum should be distended with contrast agent, and that sagittal T2-weighted images should include the entire pelvis within the field of view. The panel also agreed unanimously that IV contrast should not be used for MR defecography. Additional areas of consensus ranged in agreement from 75 to 92%. CONCLUSION: We provide a set of consensus recommendations for MR defecography technique based on a survey of expert radiologists in the SAR pelvic floor dysfunction disease-focused panel. These recommendations can be used to develop a standardized imaging protocol.
Entities:
Keywords:
Disease-focused panel; Magnetic resonance defecography; Pelvic floor imaging; Recommendations
Authors: Ivan R Diamond; Robert C Grant; Brian M Feldman; Paul B Pencharz; Simon C Ling; Aideen M Moore; Paul W Wales Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Julie A Tumbarello; Yvonne Hsu; Christina Lewicky-Gaupp; Suzan Rohrer; John O L DeLancey Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2010-06-11 Impact factor: 2.894
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: Brototo Deb; Mayank Sharma; Joel G Fletcher; Sushmitha Grama Srinivasan; Alexandra Chronopoulou; Jun Chen; Kent R Bailey; Kelly J Feuerhak; Adil E Bharucha Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 22.682