Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 118, Issue 1, pp 23–39 | Cite as

Pelvic floor imaging: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and conventional defecography in studying outlet obstruction syndrome

  • P. V. FotiEmail author
  • R. Farina
  • G. Riva
  • M. Coronella
  • E. Fisichella
  • S. Palmucci
  • A. Racalbuto
  • G. Politi
  • G. C. Ettorre
Abdominal Radiology / Radiologia Addominale

Abstract

Purpose

This study prospectively compared the diagnostic capabilities of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with conventional defecography (CD) in outlet obstruction syndrome.

Materials and methods

Nineteen consecutive patients with clinical symptoms of outlet obstruction underwent pelvic MR examination. The MR imaging protocol included static T2-weighted fast spin-echo (FSE) images in the sagittal, axial and coronal planes; dynamic midsagittal T2-weighted single-shot (SS)-FSE and fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition (FIESTA) cine images during contraction, rest, straining and defecation. MR images (including and then excluding the evacuation phase) were compared with CD, which is considered the reference standard.

Results

Comparison between CD and MR with evacuation phase (MRWEP) showed no significant differences in sphincter hypotonia, dyssynergia, rectocele or rectal prolapse and significant differences in descending perineum. Comparison between CD and MR without evacuation phase (MRWOEP) showed no significant differences in sphincter hypotonia, dyssynergia or enterocele but significant differences in rectocele, rectal prolapse and descending perineum. Comparison between MRWEP and MRWOEP showed no significant differences in sphincter hypotonia, dyssynergia, enterocele or descending perineum but significant differences in rectocele, rectal prolapse, peritoneocele, cervical cystoptosis and hysteroptosis.

Conclusions

MR imaging provides morphological and functional study of pelvic floor structures and may offer an imaging tool complementary to CD in multicompartment evaluation of the pelvis. An evacuation phase is mandatory.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Pelvic floor Dynamic MR Prolapse Defecography 

Imaging del pavimento pelvico: confronto fra risonanza magnetica e defecografia tradizionale nello studio della sindrome da defecazione ostruita

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Scopo del presente lavoro è stato confrontare prospettivamente le capacità diagnostiche della risonanza magnetica (RM) con quelle della defecografia tradizionale (DT) nello studio della sindrome da defecazione ostruita.

Materiali e metodi

Diciannove pazienti consecutivi con defecazione ostruita sono stati sottoposti ad RM della pelvi. Sono state acquisite sequenze statiche fast spin echo (FSE)-T2-pesate sui piani sagittale, assiale e coronale e sequenze dinamiche single shot fast spin echo (SSFSE) e fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition (FIESTA) sul piano sagittale mediano durante contrazione dello sfintere anale, riposo, ponzamento, defecazione. Le immagini RM (prima includendo, poi escludendo la fase di evacuazione) sono state confrontate con la DT considerata come standard di riferimento.

Risultati

Il confronto DT vs RM con fase di evacuazione (RMCE) ha evidenziato differenze statisticamente non significative nell’ipotonia sfinteriale, dissinergia, rettocele, prolasso rettale, enterocele e differenze significative nel perineo discendente. Il confronto DT vs RM senza fase di evacuazione (RMSE) ha evidenziato differenze non significative nell’ipotonia sfinteriale, dissinergia, enterocele e differenze significative nel rettocele, prolasso rettale, perineo discendente. Il confronto RMCE vs RMSE ha evidenziato differenze non significative nell’ipotonia sfinteriale, dissinergia, enterocele, perineo discendente e differenze significative nel rettocele, prolasso rettale, peritoneocele, cervicocistoptosi, isteroptosi.

Conclusioni

La RM consente di effettuare uno studio morfologico e funzionale del pavimento pelvico; può rappresentare un esame complementare alla DT nella valutazione multicompartimentale della pelvi. La fase di evacuazione è fondamentale.

Parole chiave

Risonanza magnetica Pavimento pelvico RM dinamica Prolasso Defecografia 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References/bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Bolog N, Weishaupt D (2005) Dynamic MR imaging of outlet obstruction Rom J Gastroenterol 14:293–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maglinte DD, Kelvin FM, Fitzgerald K et al (1999) Association of compartment defects in pelvic floor dysfunction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:439–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hale DS, Benson JT (2000) Female pelvic organ prolapse: a comparison of triphasic dynamic MR imaging and triphasic fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:81–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mondot L, Novellas S, Senni M et al (2006) Pelvic prolapse: static and dynamic MRI. Abdom Imaging 32:775–783PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maubon A, Aubard Y, Berkane V et al (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvic floor. Abdom Imaging 28:217–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fielding JR (2002) Practical MR imaging of female pelvic floor weakness. Radiographics 22:295–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roos JE, Weishaupt D, Wildermuth S et al (2002) Experience of 4 years with open MR defecography: pictorial review of anorectal anatomy and disease. Radiographics 22:817–832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pannu HK, Kaufman HS, Cundiff GW et al (2000) Dynamic MR imaging of pelvic organ prolapse: spectrum of abnormalities. Radiographics 20:1567–1582PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hilfiker PR, Debatin JF, Schwizer W et al (1998) MR defecography: depiction of anorectal anatomy and pathology. J Comput Assist Tomogr 22:749–755PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruyt RH, Delemarre JB, Doornbos J, Vogel HJ (1991) Normal anorectum: dynamic MR imaging anatomy. Radiology 179:159–163PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mortele KJ, Fairhurst J (2007) Dynamic MR defecography of the posterior compartment: Indications, techniques and MRI features. Eur J Radiol 61:462–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Halligan S, Malouf A, Bartram CI et al (2001) Predictive value of impaired evacuation at proctography in diagnosing anismus. AJR Am J Roentgenol 177:633–636PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hecht EM, Lee VS, Tanpitukpongse TP et al (2008) MRI of pelvic floor dysfunction: dynamic true fast imaging with steady-state precession versus HASTE. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:352–358PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang A, Mostwin JL, Rosenheim NB, Zerhouni EA (1991) Pelvic floor descent in women: dynamic evaluation with fast MR imaging and cinematic display. Radiology 179:25–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Torricelli P, Pecchi A, Caruso Lombardi A et al (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating functional disorders of female pelvic floor. Radiol Med 103:488–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A et al (1997) Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic-floor descent. Eur Radiol 7:1309–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vanbeckevoort D, Van Hoe L, Oyen R et al (1999) Pelvic floor descent in females: comparative study of colpocystodefecography and dynamic fast MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:373–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lapray JF (2000) Imaging della vescica e della dinamica pelvica nella donna. Verduci Editore, RomaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cappabianca S, Reginelli A, Iacobellis F et al (2011) Dynamic MRI defecography vs. entero-colpocystodefecography in the evaluation of midline pelvic floor hernias in female pelvic floor disorders. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:1191–1196Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shorvon PJ, Marshall MM (2005) Evacuation proctography. In: Wexner SD, Zbar AP, Pescatori M (eds) Complex anorectal disorders: investigation and management. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 171–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Altringer WE, Saclarides TJ, Dominguez JM et al (1995) Four-contrast defecography: pelvic “flooroscopy”. Dis Colon Rectum 38:695–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zonca G, De Thomatis A, Marchesini R et al (1997) The absorbed dose to the gonads in adult patients undergoing defecographic study by digital or traditional radiographic imaging. Radiol Med (Torino) 94:520–523Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goei R, Kemerink G (1990) Radiation dose in defecography. Radiology 176:137–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fiaschetti V, Squillaci E, Pastorelli D et al (2011) Dynamic MR defecography with an open-configuration, low-field, tilting MR system in patients with pelvic floor disorders. Radiol Med 116:620–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lamb GM, de Jode MG, Gould SW et al (2000) Upright dynamic MR defaecating proctography in an open configuration MR system. BJR 73:152–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schoenenberger AW, Debatin JF, Guldenschuh I et al (1998) Dynamic MR defecography with a superconducting, open configuration MR system. Radiology 206:641–646PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bertschinger KM, Hetzer FH, Roos JE et al (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 223:501–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. V. Foti
    • 1
    Email author
  • R. Farina
    • 1
  • G. Riva
    • 1
  • M. Coronella
    • 1
  • E. Fisichella
    • 1
  • S. Palmucci
    • 1
  • A. Racalbuto
    • 2
  • G. Politi
    • 1
  • G. C. Ettorre
    • 1
  1. 1.Istituto di RadiologiaAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria “Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele”, P.O. “Gaspare Rodolico” di CataniaCataniaItaly
  2. 2.Dipartimento di Scienze ChirurgicheAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria “Policlinico-Vittorio Emanuele”CataniaItaly

Personalised recommendations