Magnetic resonance defecography versus clinical examination and fluoroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 673 Downloads
Magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) allows for dynamic visualisation of the pelvic floor compartments when assessing for pelvic floor dysfunction. Additional benefits over traditional techniques are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to compare detection and miss rates of pelvic floor abnormalities with MRD versus clinical examination and traditional fluoroscopic techniques.
A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were accessed. Studies were included if they reported detection rates of at least one outcome of interest with MRD versus EITHER clinical examination AND/OR fluoroscopic techniques within the same cohort of patients.
Twenty-eight studies were included: 14 studies compared clinical examination to MRD, and 16 compared fluoroscopic techniques to MRD. Detection and miss rates with MRD were not significantly different from clinical examination findings for any outcome except enterocele, where MRD had a higher detection rate (37.16% with MRD vs 25.08%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.21–4.11, p = 0.010) and lower miss rates (1.20 vs 37.35%; OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01–0.20, p = 0.0001) compared to clinical examination. However, compared to fluoroscopy, MRD had a lower detection rate for rectoceles (61.84 vs 73.68%; OR 0.48 95% CI 0.30–0.76, p = 0.002) rectoanal intussusception (37.91 vs 57.14%; OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16–0.66, p = 0.002) and perineal descent (52.29 vs 74.51%; OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17–0.74, p = 0.006). Miss rates of MRD were also higher compared to fluoroscopy for rectoceles (15.96 vs 0%; OR 15.74, 95% CI 5.34–46.40, p < 0.00001), intussusception (36.11 vs 3.70%; OR 10.52, 95% CI 3.25–34.03, p = 0.0001) and perineal descent (32.11 vs 0.92%; OR 12.30, 95% CI 3.38–44.76, p = 0.0001).
MRD has a role in the assessment of pelvic floor dysfunction. However, clinicians need to be mindful of the risk of underdiagnosis and consider the use of additional imaging.
KeywordsFluoroscopic proctography Pelvic floor dysfunction Magnetic resonance defecography
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All studies included in this analysis had ethical approval from their appropriate ethical bodies.
Formal consent was not required for this study.
- 3.Bertschinger KM, Hetzer FH, Roos JE, Treiber K, Marincek B, Hilfiker PR (2002) 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 223(2):501–508. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2232010665 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D,et al (2013) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca. Accessed 30 Oct 2017
- 10.Pannu HK, Scatarige JC, Eng J (2009) Comparison of supine magnetic resonance imaging with and without rectal contrast to fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography for the diagnosis of pelvic organ prolapse. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33(1):125–130. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e318161d739 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Paetzel C, Strotzer M, Furst A, Rentsch M, Lenhart M, Feuerbach S (2001) Dynamic magnetic resonance defecography in the diagnosis of combined pelvic floor disorders in proctology. [German] (Dynamische MR-defakographie zur diagnostik kombinierter beckenbodenfunktionsstorungen in der proktologie). RoFo Fortschritte auf dem Gebiet der Rontgenstrahlen und der Bildgebenden Verfahren 173(5):410–415. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-13335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Torricelli P, Pecchi A, Caruso Lombardi A, Vetruccio E, Vetruccio S, Romagnoli R (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating functional disorders of female pelvic floor. Radiol Med (Torino) 103(5–6):488–500Google Scholar
- 15.Lind LR, Ben Levi E, Winkler HA, Prabakar C, Blumenthal B, Shalom DF, Nosseir SB (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging defecography reveals more advanced pelvic organ prolapse than clinical POPQ assessment. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 1:S26–S27. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPV.0b013e31824bf52d Google Scholar
- 17.Cortes E, Reid WM, Singh K, Berger L (2004) Clinical examination and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in vaginal vault prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 103(1):41–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000102704.29607.fc CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Faucheron JL, Barot S, Collomb D, Hohn N, Anglade D, Dubreuil A (2014) Dynamic cystocolpoproctography is superior to functional pelvic MRI in the diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol G B Irel 16(7):O240–O247. https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.12586 Google Scholar
- 22.Kaufman HS, Buller JL, Thompson JR, Pannu HK, DeMeester SL, Genadry RR, Bluemke DA, Jones B, Rychcik JL, Cundiff GW (2001) Dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and cystocolpoproctography alter surgical management of pelvic floor disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 44(11):1575–1583 (discussion 1583–1574) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Attenberger UI, Morelli JN, Budjan J, Herold A, Kienle P, Kleine W, Hacker A, Baumann C, Heinzelbecker J, Schoenberg SO, Michaely HJ (2015) The value of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging in interdisciplinary treatment of pelvic floor dysfunction. Abdom Imaging 40(7):2242–2247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0476-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Martin Martin G, Garcia Armengol J, Roig Vila JV, Garcia Coret MJ, Martinez Sanjuan V, Almela Notari P, Minguez Perez M (2012) Analysis of experience in the use of dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of obstructive defaecation syndrome. Cirugia Espanola 90(5):292–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ciresp.2012.01.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Bussen D, Kenn W, Stoffels J, Moll R, Sailer M (2003) Comparative study of dynamic MR-imaging and evacuation proctography in patients with pelvic floor syndrome. [German] (Vergleich der Dynamischen MR-Defakographie und Konventionellen Rontgendefakographie in der Diagnostik der Beckenbodeninsuffizienz.). Coloproctology 25(6):301–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00053-003-5111-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Cappabianca S, Reginelli A, Iacobellis F, Granata V, Urciuoli L, Alabiso ME, Di Grezia G, Marano I, Gatta G, Grassi R (2011) 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 26(9):1191–1196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-011-1218-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 32.Foti PV, Farina R, Riva G, Coronella M, Fisichella E, Palmucci S, Racalbuto A, Politi G, Ettorre GC (2013) Pelvic floor imaging: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and conventional defecography in studying outlet obstruction syndrome. Radiol Med (Torino) 118(1):23–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-012-0840-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Healy JC, Halligan S, Reznek RH, Watson S, Bartram CI, Phillips R, Armstrong P (1997) Dynamic MR imaging compared with evacuation proctography when evaluating anorectal configuration and pelvic floor movement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169(3):775–779. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.169.3.9275895 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Pilkington SA, Nugent KP, Brenner J, Harris S, Clarke A, Lamparelli M, Thomas C, Tarver D (2012) Barium proctography vs magnetic resonance proctography for pelvic floor disorders: a comparative study. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol G B Irel 14(10):1224–1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.02945.x Google Scholar
- 36.Song WL, Wang ZJ, Zheng Y, Yi BQ, Yang XQ, Jiang T (2009) Application of pelvic floor dynamic MRI combining defecography with homemade high conformable sacculus in the management of obstructed defecation syndrome. Zhonghua wai ke za zhi [Chin J Surg] 47(24):1843–1845Google Scholar
- 38.Vitton V, Vignally P, Barthet M, Cohen V, Durieux O, Bouvier M, Grimaud JC (2011) Dynamic anal endosonography and MRI defecography in diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders: comparison with conventional defecography. Dis Colon Rectum 54(11):1398–1404. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCR.0b013e31822e89bc CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Wang Y, Gong SG, Zhang WG, Liu BH, Zhang LY (2005) [Comparative study between dynamic MRI and pelvic organography in diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders]. Zhonghua wei chang wai ke za zhi = Chinese. J Gastrointest Surg 8(3):206–209Google Scholar
- 40.Dvorkin LS, Hetzer F, Scott SM, Williams NS, Gedroyc W, Lunniss PJ (2004) Open-magnet MR defaecography compared with evacuation proctography in the diagnosis and management of patients with rectal intussusception. Colorectal Dis Off J Assoc Coloproctol G B Irel 6(1):45–53Google Scholar
- 42.Pfeifer T, Hager T, Scherbel J (1999) Classification of descending perineum syndrome by magnetic resonance imaging—a step to rational treatment. [German] (Klassifikation der beckenbodeninsuffizienz mit hilfe der magnetresonanztomographie (MRT)—Ein schritt zur rationalen therapie). Coloproctology 21(1):13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Healy JC, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Kamm MA, Phillips RK, Reznek R (2002) Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the structural and functional results of postanal repair for neuropathic fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 45(12):1629–1634. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.dcr.0000038107.50289.c4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar