Main Article Content
Background. Outlet obstruction syndrome refers to all pelvic floor dysfunctions that are responsible for incomplete evacuation of fecal contents from the rectum. Defecography is the first step for diagnosis of outlet obstruction syndrome. The free selection of imaging planes, good temporal resolution, and excellent soft tissue contrast has helped to transform this method into the preferred imaging modality for evaluation of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction. The purpose of our study was to compare conventional and magnetic resonance (MR) defecography in patients who were admitted for outlet obstruction syndrome. Materials and methods. Twenty-eight patients who presented with constipation between January 2015 and January 2020 were included in this study. MR defecography was performed 1 to 2 weeks after conventional defecography. The methods were compared with regard to their ability to diagnose anterior rectocele, internal mucosal intussusception with or without rectocele, and puborectal spasm. Additional abnormalities were also noted. Results. Comparison of conventional and MR defecography for their ability to diagnose anterior rectocele, internal mucosal intussusception, and puborectal spasm showed no significant differences between the 2 methods. The continuity correction ratio of the 2 methods for diagnosis of anterior rectocele, internal mucosal intussusception, and puborectal spasm was 0.146, 0.007, and 1.000, respectively. Conclusions. Although conventional defecography is the gold standard for diagnosis of rectocele, intussusception, and puborectal spasm, MR defecography has garnered considerable attention due to the lower radiation, increased safety, and higher incidence for diagnosis of another pathology, such as uterine diversion.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Our edition uses the copyright terms of Creative Commons for open access journals.
Authors, who are published in this journal, agree with the following terms:
- The authors retain rights for authorship of their article and grant to the edition the right of first publication of the article on a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which allows others to freely distribute the published article, with the obligatory reference to the authors of original works and original publication in this journal.
- Directing the article for the publication to the editorial board (publisher), the author agrees with transmitting of rights for the protection and using the article, including parts of the article, which are protected by the copyrights, such as the author’s photo, pictures, charts, tables, etc., including the reproduction in the media and the Internet; for distributing; for the translation of the manuscript in all languages; for export and import of the publications copies of the writers’ article to spread, bringing to the general information.
- The rights mentioned above authors transfer to the edition (publisher) for the unlimited period of validity and on the territory of all countries of the world.
- The authors guarantee that they have exclusive rights for using of the article, which they have sent to the edition (publisher). The edition (the publisher) is not responsible for the violation of given guarantees by the authors to the third parties.
- The authors have the right to conclude separate supplement agreements that relate to non-exclusive distribution of their article in the form in which it had been published in the journal (for example, to upload the work to the online storage of the journal or publish it as part of a monograph), provided that the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal is included.
- The policy of the journal permits and encourages the publication of the article in the Internet (in institutional repository or on a personal website) by the authors, because it contributes to productive scientific discussion and a positive effect on efficiency and dynamics of the citation of the article.
Martín-Martín GP, García-Armengol J, Roig-Vila JV, et al. Magnetic resonance defecography versus videodefecography in the study of obstructed defecation syndrome: Is videodefecography still the test of choice after 50 years?. Tech Coloproctol. 2017;21(10):795-802. doi:10.1007/s10151-017-1666-0.
Foti PV, Farina R, Riva G, et al. Pelvic floor imaging: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and conventional defecography in studying outlet obstruction syndrome. Radiol Med. 2013;118(1):23-39. doi:10.1007/s11547-012-0840-8.
Pannu HK, Kaufman HS, Cundiff GW, Genadry R, Bluemke DA, Fishman EK. Dynamic MR imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: spectrum of abnormalities. Radiographics. 2000;20(6):1567-1582. doi:10.1148/radiographics.20.6.g00nv311567.
Piloni V, Bergamasco M, Melara G, Garavello P. The clinical value of magnetic resonance defecography in males with obstructed defecation syndrome. Tech Coloproctol. 2018;22(3):179-190. doi:10.1007/s10151-018-1759-4.
Siproudhis L, Dautrème S, Ropert A, et al. Dyschezia and rectocele--a marriage of convenience? Physiologic evaluation of the rectocele in a group of 52 women complaining of difficulty in evacuation. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36(11):1030-1036. doi:10.1007/BF02047295.
Pfeifer J, Oliveira L, Park UC, Gonzalez A, Agachan F, Wexner SD. Are interpretations of video defecographies reliable and reproducible?. Int J Colorectal Dis. 1997;12(2):67-72. doi:10.1007/s003840050083.
Halligan S, Malouf A, Bartram CI, Marshall M, Hollings N, Kamm MA. Predictive value of impaired evacuation at proctography in diagnosing anismus. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001;177(3):633-636. doi:10.2214/ajr.177.3.1770633.
Roos JE, Weishaupt D, Wildermuth S, Willmann JK, Marincek B, Hilfiker PR. Experience of 4 years with open MR defecography: pictorial review of anorectal anatomy and disease. Radiographics. 2002;22(4):817-832. doi:10.1148/radiographics.22.4.g02jl02817.
Reiner CS, Tutuian R, Solopova AE, Pohl D, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR defecography in patients with dyssynergic defecation: spectrum of imaging findings and diagnostic value. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(998):136-144. doi:10.1259/bjr/28989463.
Bertschinger KM, Hetzer FH, Roos JE, Treiber K, Marincek B, Hilfiker PR. Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor performed with patient sitting in an open-magnet unit versus with patient supine in a closed-magnet unit. Radiology. 2002;223(2):501-508. doi:10.1148/radiol.2232010665.
Delemarre JB, Kruyt RH, Doornbos J, et al. Anterior rectocele: assessment with radiographic defecography, dynamic magnetic resonance imaging, and physical examination. Dis Colon Rectum. 1994;37(3):249-259. doi:10.1007/BF02048163.
Vanbeckevoort D, Van Hoe L, Oyen R, Ponette E, De Ridder D, Deprest J. Pelvic floor descent in females: comparative study of colpocystodefecography and dynamic fast MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9(3):373-377. doi:10.1002/(sici)1522-2586(199903)9:3<373::aid-jmri2>3.0.co;2-h.
Vitton V, Vignally P, Barthet M, et al. Dynamic anal endosonography and MRI defecography in diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders: comparison with conventional defecography. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(11):1398-1404. doi:10.1097/DCR.0b013e31822e89bc.
Cappabianca S, Reginelli A, Iacobellis F, et al. Dynamic MRI defecography vs. entero-colpo-cysto-defecography in the evaluation of midline pelvic floor hernias in female pelvic floor disorders. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011;26(9):1191-1196. doi:10.1007/s00384-011-1218-4.