PURPOSE: A recent application of endosonography in the evaluation of anal sphincter morphology has led to controversy about the possibility of precisely assessing the diameter of external and internal anal sphincter muscles. On the other hand, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proposed to allow a more detailed view of the anatomy of the pelvic floor. However, both techniques have not yet been compared directly. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers (age range, 25-40 years; 5:3, male:female) participated. Anal ultrasound was performed using a 7.5-MHz rectal transducer which produced a transversal panorama display of 360 degrees, allowing an image perpendicular to the anal canal. Imaging of the diameter of the internal and external anal sphincter muscles was performed with the transducer placed in the midanal canal, and measurement was always performed by the same investigator in dorsal projection. MRI was performed using a 1.5 Tesla Magnetom (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) to obtain sagittal and angled axial (perpendicular to the anal canal) planes for consecutive 3-mm slices which were evaluated by four independent raters. RESULTS: Muscle thickness of the sphincter muscles in dorsal projection was 1.96 +/- 0.61 mm for the internal sphincter and 6.35 +/- 1.07 mm for the external sphincter using ultrasound. It was 1.72 +/- 0.13 mm and 3.99 +/- 0.99 mm, respectively, using MRI. When both measures were compared, only the internal sphincter data correlated significantly (r = 0.818, P = 0.0023) between both measures. Sagittal resonance imaging of the anal canal did not allow for differentiation of both muscles at all. Differentiation among mucosa, submucosa, and internal anal sphincter is not possible with MRI but may well be performed with high-resolution ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Anal ultrasound carries the potential of becoming a routine clinical procedure for evaluation of the anal anatomy and morphology in defecation disorders, but current MRI assessment of the anal anatomy is elaborate, costly, and does not provide any further insights.
PURPOSE: A recent application of endosonography in the evaluation of anal sphincter morphology has led to controversy about the possibility of precisely assessing the diameter of external and internal anal sphincter muscles. On the other hand, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been proposed to allow a more detailed view of the anatomy of the pelvic floor. However, both techniques have not yet been compared directly. METHODS: Eight healthy volunteers (age range, 25-40 years; 5:3, male:female) participated. Anal ultrasound was performed using a 7.5-MHz rectal transducer which produced a transversal panorama display of 360 degrees, allowing an image perpendicular to the anal canal. Imaging of the diameter of the internal and external anal sphincter muscles was performed with the transducer placed in the midanal canal, and measurement was always performed by the same investigator in dorsal projection. MRI was performed using a 1.5 Tesla Magnetom (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) to obtain sagittal and angled axial (perpendicular to the anal canal) planes for consecutive 3-mm slices which were evaluated by four independent raters. RESULTS: Muscle thickness of the sphincter muscles in dorsal projection was 1.96 +/- 0.61 mm for the internal sphincter and 6.35 +/- 1.07 mm for the external sphincter using ultrasound. It was 1.72 +/- 0.13 mm and 3.99 +/- 0.99 mm, respectively, using MRI. When both measures were compared, only the internal sphincter data correlated significantly (r = 0.818, P = 0.0023) between both measures. Sagittal resonance imaging of the anal canal did not allow for differentiation of both muscles at all. Differentiation among mucosa, submucosa, and internal anal sphincter is not possible with MRI but may well be performed with high-resolution ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Anal ultrasound carries the potential of becoming a routine clinical procedure for evaluation of the anal anatomy and morphology in defecation disorders, but current MRI assessment of the anal anatomy is elaborate, costly, and does not provide any further insights.
Authors: Giulio Aniello Santoro; Andrzej Paweł Wieczorek; Aleksandra Stankiewicz; Magdalena Maria Woźniak; Michał Bogusiewicz; Tomasz Rechberger Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2009-06-17