Advertisement

Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 321–322 | Cite as

Videodefecography is still superior to magnetic resonance defecography in the study of obstructed defecation syndrome

  • J.-L. Faucheron
  • P.-Y. Sage
  • B. Trilling
Correspondence

Dear Sir,

We read with interest the article by Martín-Martín et al. [1] reporting on evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) defecography and videodefecography (VD) in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Based on their experience and partial review of the literature, the authors conclude that MR defecography is the imaging modality of choice for evaluating patients with ODS. Our experience in pelvic floor imaging [2, 3] and rectal prolapse repair [4, 5, 6, 7], and the attentive reading of the methodology and results reported by the authors, showing many weaknesses and deficiencies, lead us to make some comments and criticisms on this article.

Concerning clinical biases, our first question is why 2 men were included in the study, as in men there is of course no rectocele nor cystocele or perineal descent. Therefore, the rectocele rates for VD and MR defecography are not 90 and 92.5%, but 95 and 97%, respectively. Second, there is no mention on the use of...

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, informed consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Martín-Martín GP, García-Armengol J, Roig-Vila JV et al (2017) Magnetic resonance defecography versus videodefecography in the study of obstructed defecation syndrome: is videodefecography still the test of choice after 50 years? Tech Coloproctol 21:795–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Faucheron JL, Barot S, Collomb D, Hohn N, Anglade D, Dubreuil A (2014) Dynamic cystocolpoproctography is superior to functional pelvic magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis 16:240–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Trilling B, Sage PY, Henry L, Mancini A, Reche F, Faucheron JL (2017) Dynamic cystocolpoproctography to confirm the efficacy of laparoscopic rectopexy in the treatment of hedrocele associated with full-thickness rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 21:475–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Faucheron JL, Trilling B, Girard E, Sage PY, Barbois S, Reche F (2015) Anterior rectopexy for full-thickness rectal prolapse: technical and functional results. World J Gastroenterol 21:5049–5055CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Faucheron JL, Voirin D, Riboud R, Waroquet PA, Noel J (2012) Laparoscopic anterior rectopexy to the promontory for full-thickness rectal prolapse in 175 consecutive patients: short- and long-term follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 55:660–665CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reche F, Faucheron JL (2015) Laparoscopic ventral rectopexy is the gold standard treatment for rectal prolapse. Tech Coloproctol 19:565–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Faucheron JL, Trilling B, Barbois S, Sage PY, Waroquet PA, Reche F (2016) Day-case robotic ventral rectopexy compared with day case laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a prospective study. Tech Coloproctol 20:695–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Trilling B, Faucheron JL (2016) New-onset rectoanal intussusception after laparoscopic ventral rectopexy: a normal image? Tech Coloproctol 20:885–886CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kelvin FM, Hale DS, Maglinte DDT et al (1999) Female pelvic organ prolapse: diagnostic contribution of dynamic cystoproctography and comparison with physical examination. AJR 173:31–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colorectal Unit, Department of SurgeryGrenoble Alpes University HospitalGrenobleFrance
  2. 2.UMR 5525, CNRS, TIMC-IMAGUniversity Grenoble AlpesGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations