Abstract
Background
X-ray defecography or magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) and high-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) are essential for the diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders (PFD). However, there is only scarce information available about the accuracy of MRD in the functional assessment of the pelvic floor. The aim of this study was to examine the accuracy of MRD in the diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders by examining the intra-test agreement with x-ray defecography and HR-ARM in patients with PFD.
Methods
The study population included adults referred to our institution in January 2018–February 2020 for MRD as part of their evaluation of PFD. The MRD results were compared with X-ray defecography and HR-ARM.
Results
Forty-two patients were included in the study (36 female, 86%, mean age 56.9 years ± 15.8, range 19–86 years). When compared to X-ray defecography, the sensitivity of MRD for the evaluation of normal rest and squeeze pressures was high (0.83 and 1, respectively). High sensitivity rates were observed for the detection of pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dyssynergia (0.84–1). When compared to HR-ARM, the sensitivity of MRD for the evaluation of squeeze and dyssynergia was very good (0.92and 1, respectively), and good for the evaluation of rest pressure (0.6). Inter-test agreement was high (0.5, 0.6, 0.6 for rest, squeeze and dyssynergia). Excellent rates of sensitivity as well as almost perfect intra-test agreement was found between abnormal balloon expulsion test and the diagnosis of dyssynergia and pelvic organ prolapse on MRD (1, 0.81).
Conclusions
This study demonstrated substantial diagnostic agreement between HR-ARM and MRD in the diagnosis of pathological etiologies for functional pelvic floor disorders, mainly obstructed defecation syndrome.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hallock JL, Handa VL (2016) The epidemiology of pelvic floor disorders and childbirth: an update. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 43:1–13
Wu JM, Vaughan CP, Goode PS et al (2014) Prevelance and trends of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in U.S. women. Obstet Gynecol 123(1):141–148
Mortele KJ, Fairhurst J (2007) Dynamic MR defecography of the posterior compartment: indications, techniques and MRI features. Clin Imaging 31(5):371
Bo K, Frawley HC, Haylen BT et al (2017) An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for the conservative and nonpharmacological management of female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J 28:191–213
Podzemny V, Pescatori LC, Pescatori M (2015) Management of obstructed defecation. World J Gastroenterol 21(4):1053–1060
Carter D (2014) Conservative treatment for anal incontinence. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2(2):85–91
Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL et al (2008) Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA 300(11):1311–1316
Maglinte DD, Kelvin FM, Fitzgerald K et al (1999) Association of compartment defects in pelvic floor dysfunction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172(2):439–444
Carrington EV, Scott SM, Bharucha A et al (2018) Expert consensus document: advances in the evaluation of anorectal function. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 15(5):309–323
Colaiacomo MC, Masselli G, Polettini E et al (2009) Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor: a pictorial review. Radiographics 10:1148
Kanmaniraja D, Arif-Tiwari H, Palmer SL et al (2019) MR defecography review. Abdom Radiol (NY). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02228-4(epub ahead of print)
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(10):795–802
Bharucha AE, Pemberton JH, Locke GR 3rd (2013) American Gastroenterological Association technical review on constipation. Gastroenterology 144:218–238
Ratuapli SK, Bharucha AE, Noelting J et al (2013) Phenotypic identification and classification of functional defecatory disorders using high-resolution anorectal manometry. Gastroenterology 144:314–322
Noelting J, Ratuapli S, Bharucha A et al (2012) Normal values for high resolution anorectal manometry in healthy women: effects of age and significance of rectoanal gradient. Am J Gastroenterol 107:1530–1536
Azpiroz F, Enck P, Whitehead WE (2002) Anorectal functional testing: review of collective experience. Am J Gastroenterol 97:232–240
García del Salto L, de Miguel CJ, Aguilera del Hoyo LF et al (2014) MR imaging-based assessment of the female pelvic floor. Radiographics 34(5):1417–1439
El Sayed RF, Alt CD, Maccioni F et al (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction - joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Eur Radiol 27(5):2067–2085
Shorvon PJ, McHugh S, Diamant NE et al (1989) Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications. Gut 30:1737–1749
Carrington EV, Heinrich H, Knowles CH et al (2020) The international anorectal physiology working group (IAPWG) recommendations: standardized testing protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function. Neurogastroenterol Motil 32(1):e13679
Garca del Salto L, de Miguel CJ, Aguilera del Hoyo LF et al (2014) MR imaging-based assessment of the female pelvic floor. Radiographics 34(5):1417–1439
Hetzer FH, Andreisek G, Tsagari C et al (2006) MR defecography in patients with fecal incontinence: imaging findings and their effect on surgical management. Radiology 240(2):449–457
Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A et al (1997) Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic floor descent. Eur Radiol 1997(7):1309–1317
van Iersel JJ, Formijne Jonkers HA, Verheijen PM et al (2017) Comparison of dynamic magnetic resonance defaecography with rectal contrast and conventional defaecography for posterior pelvic floor compartment prolapse. Colorectal Dis 19(1):O46–O53
Ramage L, Panagiotis Georgiou P, Qiu S et al (2018) Can we correlate pelvic floor dysfunction severity on MR defecography with patient-reported symptom severity? Updates Surg 70:467–547
Heinrich H, Sauter M, Fox M et al (2015) Assessment of obstructive defecation by high-resolution anorectal manometry compared with magnetic resonance defecography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13(7):1310–2131
Carter D, Ron Y, Dickman R (2017) The Israeli Neurogastroenterology association recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of chronic constipation. Harefuah. 156(11):725–729
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
DC study conception and design, material preparation, data collection and analysis, manuscript drafting; OS material preparation, data collection and analysis; ME, NH and ER participated in data interpretation and critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual property.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
Chaim Sheba MC ethical committee.
Consent for publication
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Availability of data and material
Available.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Carter, D., Saukhat, O., Alcalay, M. et al. Magnetic imaging defecography results are comparable to high-resolution manometry and conventional X-ray defecography in the assessment of functional pelvic floor disorders. Tech Coloproctol 24, 1155–1161 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02292-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-020-02292-9