Conventional Radiography, Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

  • G. Stuckmann
Conference paper


In contrast to defaecography, conventional radiography, computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are not well suited to providing information about functional disorders in patients with defaecation disorders. They are, on the other hand, excellent methods for demonstrating underlying morphological changes such as congenital anorectal anomalies, cloacal anomalies, sacral agenesis and operative complications following rectoplasty. This is particularly true of CT and MRI, conventional radiography being of considerably less value in the evaluation of anorectal abnormalities. The aim of this article is to document and illustrate the value of CT and MRI in visualising both the normal anatomy of the pelvic floor and pathological conditions which may lead to severe functional disorders. The contribution of conventional radiography is also briefly reviewed.


Pelvic Floor External Anal Sphincter Conventional Radiography Anorectal Malformation Imperforate Anus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wangensteen OH, Rice CO (1930) Imperforate anus: method of determining surgical approach. Ann Surg 92: 77–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Currarino G, Dale C, Votteler T (1981) Triad of anorectal, sacral and presacral anomalies. AJR 137: 395–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Vries PA, Cox KL (1985) Surgery of anorectal anomalies. Surg Clin North Am 65: 1139–1169Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heiken JP, Lee JKT (1988) MR imaging of the pelvis. Radiology 166: 11–16PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pomeranz SJ, Altman N, Sheldon JJ (1986) Magnetic resonance of congenital anorectal malformations. Magn Reson Imaging 4: 69–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Vade A, Reyes H, Wilbur A, Gyi G, Spigos D (1989). The anorectal sphincter after rectal pull-through surgery for anorectal anomalies: MRI evaluation. Pediatr Radiol 19: 179–183Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Templeton JM, O’Neill JA (1986) Anorectal malformations. In: Welch KJ, Randolph JG, Ravitch MM, O’Neill JA, Rowe MI (eds) Pediatric surgery, 4th edn. Year Book Medical Publisher, Chicago, pp 1021–1035Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kohda E, Fujioka M, Ikawa H, Yokoyama J (1985) Congenital anorectal anomaly: CT evaluation. Radiology 157: 349–352Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sato Y, Pringle KC, Bergman RA, Yuh WT, Smith WL, Soper RT, Franken EA (1988) Congenital anorectal anomalies: MR imaging. Radiology 168: 157–162Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mezzacappa PM, Price AP, Haller JO, Kassner EG, Hansbrough F (1987) MR and CT demonstration of levator sling in congenital anorectal anomalies. J Comput Assist Tomogr 11: 273–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kirks DR, Merten DF, Filston HC, Oakes WJ (1984) The Currarino triad: complex of anorectal malformation, sacral bony abnormality, and presacral mass. Pediatr Radiol 14: 220–225PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Butler H, Bryan PJ, Li Puma JP, Cohen AM, El Yousef S, Andriole JG, Lieberman J (1984) Magnetic resonance of the abnormal female pelvis. AJR 143: 1259–1272PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Stuckmann

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations