Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Techniques in Coloproctology
Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology 10/2017

01-10-2017 | Original Article

Magnetic resonance defecography versus videodefecography in the study of obstructed defecation syndrome: Is videodefecography still the test of choice after 50 years?

Authors: G. P. Martín-Martín, J. García-Armengol, J. V. Roig-Vila, A. Espí-Macías, V. Martínez-Sanjuán, M. Mínguez-Pérez, M. Á. Lorenzo-Liñán, C. Mulas-Fernández, F. X. González-Argenté

Published in: Techniques in Coloproctology | Issue 10/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) defecography and compare it with videodefecography in the evaluation of obstructed defecation syndrome.

Methods

This was a prospective cohort test accuracy study conducted at one major tertiary referral center on patients with a diagnosis of obstructed defecation syndrome who were referred to the colorectal surgery clinic in a consecutive series from 2009 to 2012. All patients underwent a clinical examination, videodefecography, and MR defecography in the supine position. We analyzed diagnostic accuracy for MR defecography and performed an agreement analysis using Cohen’s kappa index (κ) for each diagnostic imaging examination performed with videodefecography and MR defecography.

Results

We included 40 patients with Rome III diagnostic criteria of obstructed defecation syndrome. The degree of agreement between the two tests was as follows: almost perfect for anismus (κ = 0.88) and rectal prolapse (κ = 0.83), substantial for enterocele (κ = 0.80) and rectocele grade III (κ = 0.65), moderate for intussusception (κ = 0.50) and rectocele grade II (κ = 0.49), and slight for rectocele grade I (κ = 0.30) and excessive perineal descent (κ = 0.22). Eighteen cystoceles and 11 colpoceles were diagnosed only by MR defecography. Most patients (54%) stated that videodefecography was the more uncomfortable test.

Conclusions

MR defecography could become the imaging test of choice for evaluating obstructed defecation syndrome.
Literature
1.
Maglinte DD, Hale DS, Sandrasegaran K (2013) Comparison between dynamic cystocolpoproctography and dynamic pelvic floor MRI: pros and cons: which is the “functional” examination for anorectal and pelvic floor dysfunction? Abdom Imaging 38:952–973CrossRefPubMed
2.
Burhenne HJ (1964) Intestinal evacuation study: a new roentgenologic technique. Radiol Clin 33:79–84PubMed
3.
Wallden L (1952) Defecation block in cases of deep rectogenital pouch: a surgical roentgenological and embryological study with special reference to morphological conditions. Acta Chir Scand Suppl 165:1–122PubMed
4.
Saclarides TJ, Brubaker LT, Altringer WE, Smith CS, Dominguez JM (1996) Clarifying the technique of four-contrast defecography. Dis Colon Rectum 39:826CrossRefPubMed
5.
Altringer WE, Saclarides TJ, Dominguez JM, Brubaker LT, Smith CS (1995) Four-contrast defecography: pelvic ‘floor-oscopy’. Dis Colon Rectum 38:695–699CrossRefPubMed
6.
Martín G, García-Armengol J, Roig JV et al (2012) Analysis of experience in the use of dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of obstructive defaecation syndrome. Cir Esp 90:292–297CrossRef
7.
Bharucha AE, Wald A, Enck P, Rao S (2006) Functional anorectal disorders. Gastroenterology 130:1510–1518CrossRefPubMed
8.
García-Armengol J, Moro D, Ruiz MD, Alós R, Solana A, Roig-Vila JV (2005) Obstructive defecation. Diagnostic methods and treatment. Cir Esp 3:59–65CrossRef
9.
Mahieu P, Pringot J, Bodart P (1984) Defecography: I. Description of a new procedure and results in normal patients. Gastrointest Radiol 9:247–251CrossRefPubMed
10.
Andrade LC, Correia H, Semedo LC, Ilharco J, Caseiro-Alves F (2014) Conventional videodefecography: pathologic findings according to gender and age. Eur J Radiol Open 1:1–5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Faccioli N, Comai A, Mainardi P, Perandini S, Moore F, Pozzi-Mucelli R (2010) Defecography: a practical approach. Diagn Interv Radiol 16:209–216PubMed
12.
Maglinte DD, Bartram C (2007) Dynamic imaging of posterior compartment pelvic floor dysfunction by evacuation proctography: techniques, indications, results and limitations. Eur J Radiol 61:454–461CrossRefPubMed
13.
Palit S, Bhan C, Lunniss PJ et al (2014) Evacuation proctography: a reappraisal of normal variability. Colorectal Dis 16:538–546CrossRefPubMed
14.
Piloni V, Tosi P, Vernelli M (2013) MR-defecography in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS): technique, diagnostic criteria and grading. Tech Coloproctol 17:501–510CrossRefPubMed
15.
Comiter CV, Vasavada SP, Barbaric ZL, Gousse AE, Raz SL (1999) Grading pelvic prolapse and pelvic floor relaxation using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 54:454–457CrossRefPubMed
16.
Colaiacomo MC, Masselli G, Polettini E et al (2009) Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor: a pictorial review. Radiographics 29:e35CrossRefPubMed
17.
McMahon B, Trichopoulos D (1996) Epidemiology: principles and methods, 2nd edn. LWW, Boston. ISBN-10 0316542229, ISBN-13 978-0316542227
18.
Cohen J (1960) A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 20:37–46CrossRef
19.
Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed
20.
Parés D, Comas M, Dorcaratto D et al (2009) Adaptation and validation of the Bristol scale stool form translated into the Spanish language among health professionals and patients. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 101:312–316CrossRefPubMed
21.
Vitton V, Vignally P, Barthet M et al (2011) Dynamic anal endosonography and MRI defecography in diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders: comparison with conventional defecography. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1398–1404CrossRefPubMed
22.
Cappabianca S, Reginelli A, Iacobellis F et al (2011) Dynamic MRI defecography vs. entero-colpo-cysto-defecography in the evaluation of midline pelvic floor hernias in female pelvic floor disorders. Int J Colorectal Dis 26:1191–1196CrossRefPubMed
23.
Healy JC, Halligan S, Reznek RH et al (1997) Dynamic MR imaging compared with evacuation proctography when evaluating anorectal configuration and pelvic floor movement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:775–779CrossRefPubMed
24.
Faucheron JL, Barot S, Collomb D, Hohn N, Anglade D, Dubreuil A (2014) Dynamic cystocolpoproctography is superior to functional pelvic MRI in the diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders: results of a prospective study. Colorectal Dis 16:O240–O247CrossRefPubMed
25.
Pilkington SA, Nugent KP, Brenner J et al (2012) Barium proctography vs magnetic resonance proctography for pelvic floor disorders: a comparative study. Colorectal Dis 14:1224–1230CrossRefPubMed
26.
Matsuoka H, Wexner SD, Desai MB et al (2001) A comparison between dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and videoproctography in patients with constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 44:571–576CrossRefPubMed
27.
Foti PV, Farina R, Riva G et al (2013) Pelvic floor imaging: comparison between magnetic resonance imaging and conventional defecography in studying outlet obstruction syndrome. Radiol Med 118:23–39CrossRefPubMed
28.
Vanbeckevoort D, Van Hoe L, Oyen R, Ponette E, De Ridder D, Deprest J (1999) Pelvic floor descent in females: comparative study of colpocystodefecography and dynamic fast MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 9:373–377CrossRefPubMed
29.
Bertschinger KM, Hetzer FH, Roos JE, Treiber K, Marincek B, Hilfiker PR (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 223:501–508CrossRefPubMed
30.
Karlbom U, Graf W, Nilsson S, Påhlman L (2004) The accuracy of clinical examination in the diagnosis of rectal intussusception. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1533–1538CrossRefPubMed
31.
Dvorkin LS, Hetzer F, Scott SM, Williams NS, Gedroyc W, Lunniss PJ (2004) Open-magnet MR defaecography compared with evacuation proctography in the diagnosis and management of patients with rectal intussusception. Colorectal Dis 6:45–53CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Magnetic resonance defecography versus videodefecography in the study of obstructed defecation syndrome: Is videodefecography still the test of choice after 50 years?
Authors
G. P. Martín-Martín
J. García-Armengol
J. V. Roig-Vila
A. Espí-Macías
V. Martínez-Sanjuán
M. Mínguez-Pérez
M. Á. Lorenzo-Liñán
C. Mulas-Fernández
F. X. González-Argenté
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Techniques in Coloproctology / Issue 10/2017
Print ISSN: 1123-6337
Electronic ISSN: 1128-045X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10151-017-1666-0

Other articles of this Issue 10/2017

Techniques in Coloproctology 10/2017 Go to the issue

Video Forum

Perineal rectosigmoidectomy combined with TAMIS rectopexy: a NOTES operation for rectal procidentia

Correspondence

It is not what it seems

Technical Advances

Assessment of a flexible robotic system for endoluminal applications and transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME): Could this be the solution we have been searching for?

Challenges in Coloproctology

Operative vectors, anatomic distortion, fluid dynamics and the inherent effects of pneumatic insufflation encountered during transanal total mesorectal excision

Abstracts

7th National Congress of the Italian Society of Colorectal Surgery

Original Article

High-dose versus low-dose botulinum toxin in anal fissure disease