Prospective Comparison between two different magnetic resonance defecography techniques for evaluating pelvic floor disorders: air-balloon versus gel for rectal filling.
prospective_cohort · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 26443600.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1007/s00330-015-4016-5.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
to prospectively compare two rectal filling techniques for dynamic MRI of pelvic floor disorders (PFD). Twenty-six patients with PFD underwent the two techniques during the same procedure, one based on rectal placement of a balloon-catheter filled with saline and air insufflation (air-balloon technique or AB); another based on rectal filling with 180 cc of gel (gel-filling technique or GF). The examinations were compared for assessment and staging of PFD, including rectal-descent, rectocele, cystocele, colpocele, enterocele, rectal invagination. Surgery and clinical examinations were the gold standard. AB showed sensitivity of 96 % for rectal descent, 100 % for both rectocele and colpocele, 86 % for rectal invagination and 100 % for enterocele; understaged 11 % of rectal descents and 19 % of rectoceles. GF showed sensitivity of 100 % for rectal descent, 91 % for rectocele, 83 % for colpocele, 100 % for rectal invagination and 73 % for enterocele; understaged 3.8 % of rectal descent and 11.5 % of rectoceles. Both techniques showed 100 % of specificity. Agreement between air-balloon and gel filling was 84 % for rectal descent, 69 % for rectocele, 88 % for rectal invagination, 84 % for enterocele, 88 % for cystocele and 92 % for colpocele. Both techniques allowed a satisfactory evaluation of PFD. The gel filling was superior for rectal invagination, the air-balloon for rectocele and anterior/middle compartment disorders. • A standardized MRI technique for assessing pelvic floor disorders is not yet established. • This study compares two MRI techniques based on different rectal filling: air-balloon versus gel. • Both MRI techniques proved to be valuable in assessing PFD, with good agreement. • Air-balloon technique is more hygienic and better tolerated than the gel-filling technique. • Gel was superior for rectal invagination, air-balloon for rectocele and uro-genital prolapses.
Medical subject headings
- Defecography
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging
- Pelvic Floor Disorders