PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of simultaneous defecography and peritoneography (defecoperitoneography) in patients with an unexplained widening of the rectovaginal space noted at defecography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with unexplained widening of the rectovaginal space noted at defecography were studied with defecoperitoneography. Defecoperitoneography was a combination of defecography and peritoneography with water-soluble contrast medium administered intraperitoneally. RESULTS: The outline and movements of the peritoneum and alterations in the pelvic peritoneal cavity could be visualized with defecoperitoneography during the dynamic act of defecation. Unexplained widening of the rectovaginal space was completely due to a peritoneocele in 14 patients and partially due to a peritoneocele in six patients. In two patients, there was no peritoneocele. Only nine of 22 patients had bowel in the unexplained widening (enterocele). Three patients had a rectal peritoneocele; six, a septal peritoneocele; one, a vaginal peritoneocele; and 10, a combination of these findings. CONCLUSION: Visualization of the pelvic floor with defecoperitoneography is improved compared with visualization with defecography alone.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the use of simultaneous defecography and peritoneography (defecoperitoneography) in patients with an unexplained widening of the rectovaginal space noted at defecography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with unexplained widening of the rectovaginal space noted at defecography were studied with defecoperitoneography. Defecoperitoneography was a combination of defecography and peritoneography with water-soluble contrast medium administered intraperitoneally. RESULTS: The outline and movements of the peritoneum and alterations in the pelvic peritoneal cavity could be visualized with defecoperitoneography during the dynamic act of defecation. Unexplained widening of the rectovaginal space was completely due to a peritoneocele in 14 patients and partially due to a peritoneocele in six patients. In two patients, there was no peritoneocele. Only nine of 22 patients had bowel in the unexplained widening (enterocele). Three patients had a rectal peritoneocele; six, a septal peritoneocele; one, a vaginal peritoneocele; and 10, a combination of these findings. CONCLUSION: Visualization of the pelvic floor with defecoperitoneography is improved compared with visualization with defecography alone.
Authors: Daniel Altman; Annika López; Catharina Gustafsson; Christian Falconer; Johan Nordenstam; Jan Zetterström Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2005-04-05
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: Daniel Altman; Annika López; Jonas Kierkegaard; Jan Zetterström; Christian Falconer; Johan Pollack; Anders Mellgren Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2004-09-14
Authors: Daniel Altman; Anders Mellgren; Jonas Kierkegaard; Jan Zetterström; Christian Falconer; Annika López Journal: Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct Date: 2003-12-20