Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

, Volume 44, Issue 7, pp 999–1007 | Cite as

Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging defecography

A diagnostic alternative in the assessment of pelvic floor disorders in proctology
  • M. Rentsch
  • Ch. Paetzel
  • M. Lenhart
  • S. Feuerbach
  • K. W. Jauch
  • A. Fürst
Original Contributions
  • 124 Downloads

Abstract

PURPOSE: Standard diagnostic proctologic procedures in the assessment of pelvic floor disorders include clinical evaluation and endoscopy. Particular aspects of combined pelvic floor disorders, especially those involving more than one pelvic compartment, may remain undetected without additional technical diagnostic procedures such as videoproctoscopy, cinedefecography, or colpocystodefecography. The aim of the study was to review the potentials of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging defecography to elucidate the underlying anatomic and pathophysiologic background of pelvic floor disorders in proctologic patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging defecography was performed in 20 Patients (13 females) with main diagnoses such as rectal prolapse or intussusception, rectocele, descending perineum, fecal incontinence, outlet obstruction, and dyskinetic puborectalis muscle after clinical evaluation. The investigation was performed on a 1.5 T-magnetic resonance imaging machine in supine position. The rectum was filled with Gd-DTPA enriched ultrasound gel. First a T1/T2 weighted investigation of the pelvis was performed, followed by defecography with evacuation of the rectum. Images were obtained in a sagittal plane in a frequency of 1 image/second (true FISP) at rest and during straining. The obtained magnetic resonance imaging video tapes were analyzed off-line with cinematographic evaluation of bladder base, uterus, and anal canal position in relation to the pubococcygeal line by a blinded radiologist. Investigation time was 20 minutes. RESULTS: In dynamic magnetic resonance imaging defecography of the pelvic floor, 12 patients with descending perineum, 10 rectoceles (10 females), 6 cystoceles (6 females), 4 enteroceles (4 females), 8 intussusceptions (5 females), and a dyskinetic puborectalis muscle in 3 males were detected. In 11 females and 3 males multifocal disorders were found, involving more than one compartment in females, whereas in males complex defects were restricted to the posterior compartment. Magnetic resonance imaging defecography revealed diagnoses consistent with clinical results in 77.3 percent and defects in addition to clinical diagnoses in combined pelvic floor disorders in 34 percent. CONCLUSIONS: In complex pelvic floor disorders, involving more than a single defect, dynamic magnetic resonance imaging represents a convenient diagnostic procedure in females and to a lesser extent in males, in particular in terms of dynamic imaging of pelvic floor organs during defecation. In addition to the clinical assessment, dynamic magnetic resonance imaging had clinical impact in proctologic and interdisciplinary treatment.

Key words

Dynamic MRI Proctology Combined pelvic floor disorders Diagnosis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Benson JT. Evacuation proctography (defecography): an aid to the investigation of pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol 1994;83:307–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Karasick S, Karasick D; Karasick SR. Functional disorders of the anus and rectum: findings on defecography. Am J Roentgenol 1993;160:777–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benson JT, ed. Female pelvic floor disorders. Investigation and management. New York: WW Norton, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brubaker L, Heit MH. Radiology of the pelvic floor. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1993;36:952–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hock D, Lombard R, Jehaes C,et al. Colpocystodefecography. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:1015–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sentovich SM, Rivela LJ, Thorson AG,et al. Simultaneous dynamic proctography and peritoneography for pelvic floor disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 1995;38:912–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yang A, Mostwin JL, Rosenshein NB, Zerhouni EA. Pelvic floor descent in women: dynamic evaluation with fast MR imaging and cinematic display. Radiology 1991;179:25–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kruyt RH, Delemarre JB, Doornbos J, Vogel HJ. Normal anorectum: dynamic MR imaging anatomy. Radiology 1991;179:159–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Healy JC, Halligan S, Reznek RH,et al. Dynamic MR imaging compared with evacuation proctography when evaluating anorectal configuration and pelvic floor movement. Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:775–9.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A,et al. Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic-floor descent. Eur Radiol 1997;7:1309–17.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schoenenberger AW, Debatin JF, Guldenschuh I,et al. Dynamic MR Defecography with a superconducting, open configuration MR system. Radiology 1998;206:641–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    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;37:249–59.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siproudhis L, Ropert A, Vilotte J,et al. How accurate is clinical examination in diagnosing and quantifying pelvirectal disorders? A prospective study in a group of 50 patients complaining of defecatory difficulties. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:430–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wiskind AK, Creighton SM, Stanton SL. The incidence of genital prolapse after the Burch colposuspension. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992;167:399–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang XM, Partanen K, Farin P, Soimakallo S. Defecography. Acta Radiol 1995;36:460–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ekberg O. Complications after herniography in adults. Am J Roentgenol 1983;140:491–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bremmer S, Ahlbäck SO, Uden R, Mellgren A. Simultaneous defecography and peritoneography in defecation disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 38:969–73.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hornback JA, Benson JT. Pelvic prolapse: assessment with evacuation proctography (defecography). Radiology 1992;184:547–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wald A, Caruana BJ, Freimanis MG,et al. Contributions of evacuation proctography and anorectal manometry to evaluation of adults with constipation and defecatory difficulty. Dig Dis Sci 1990;35:481–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Goei R, Kemerink G. Radiation dose in defecography. Radiology 1990;176:137–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jorge JM, Ger CC, Gonzalez L, Wexner SD. Patient position during cinedefecography: influence on perineal descent and other measurements. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:927–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fielding JR, Versi E, Mulkern RV,et al. MR imaging of the female pelvic floor in the supine and upright position. J Magn Reson Imaging 1996;6:961–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Rentsch
    • 1
  • Ch. Paetzel
    • 2
  • M. Lenhart
    • 2
  • S. Feuerbach
    • 2
  • K. W. Jauch
    • 1
  • A. Fürst
    • 1
  1. 1.From the Department of SurgeryUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute for RadiologyUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations