Barium Defecating Proctography and Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Proctography: Their Role and Patient’s Perception

Objectives: The objectives of the study were to compare the imaging findings and patient’s perception of barium defecating proctography and dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) proctography in patients with pelvic floor disorders. Material and Methods: This is a prospective study conducted on patients with pelvic floor disorders who consented to undergo both barium proctography and dynamic MR proctography. Imaging findings of both the procedures were compared. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) for key imaging features was assessed. Patient’s perception of these procedures was assessed using a short questionnaire and a visual analog scale. Results: Forty patients (M: F =19:21) with a mean age of 43.65 years and range of 21–75 years were included for final analysis. Mean patient experience score was significantly better for MR imaging (MRI) (p < 0.001). However, patients perceived significantly higher difficulty in rectal evacuation during MRI studies (p = 0.003). While significantly higher number of rectoceles (p = 0.014) were diagnosed on MRI, a greater number of pelvic floor descent (p = 0.02) and intra-rectal intussusception (p = 0.011) were diagnosed on barium proctography. The IOA for barium proctography was substantial for identifying rectoceles, rectal prolapse and for determining M line, p < 0.001. There was excellent IOA for MRI interpretation of cystoceles, peritoneoceles, and uterine prolapse and substantial to excellent IOA for determining anal canal length and anorectal angle, p < 0.001. The mean study time for the barium and MRI study was 12 minutes and 15 minutes, respectively. Conclusion: Barium proctography was more sensitive than MRI for detecting pelvic floor descent and intrarectal intussusception. Although patients perceived better rectal emptying with barium proctography, the overall patient experience was better for dynamic MRI proctography.

MRI DEFECOGRAPHY IN PELVIC FLOOR DESCENT SYNDROME (review)

Pelvic floor descent syndrome (PFDS) affects multiparous and postmenopausal women. According to epidemiological studies in postmenopausal women, more than 50% suffer from severe symptoms of PFDS, which significantly reduce the quality of life. The high prevalence of pelvic floor pathology increases the need for multimodal diagnosis and treatment. The pelvic floor is a unique anatomical and functional structure and malfunction of this system may lead to many different static and functional disorders. There are a lot of methods of medical imaging modalities for PFDS (X-ray defecography, perineal ultrasound, MR defecography). MRI defecography allows to visualize in detail all three parts of the pelvis, including soft tissues and supporting structures; to evaluate structural and functional pelvic abnormalities in a single study. The range of normal mobility of the pelvic floor and pelvic organs on MRI defecography is still required.

MR Imaging in Diagnosis of Pelvic Floor Descent: Supine versus Sitting Position

Introduction. Functional disorders of the pelvic floor represent have a significant impact on the quality of life. The advent of open-configuration systems allowed for the evaluation of defecation with MR imaging in sitting position. The purpose of the present study is to compare the results of static and dynamic pelvic MR performed in supine position versus sitting position, using a new MR prototype machine, in the diagnosis of pelvic floor descent.Materials and Methods. Thirty-one patients with pelvic floor disorders were enrolled, and underwent MR Defecography in supine position with 1.5 T closed magnet (MAGNETOM Symphony, Siemens, Germany) and in sitting position with a 0.25-Tesla open magnet system (G-Scan ESAOTE, Italy).Results. In rest and squeezing phases, positions of bladder, vagina, and ARJ were significantly different when the patient was imaged in supine versus sitting position. In the defecation phase, a significant difference for the bladder and vagina position was detected between the two exams whereas a significant difference for the ARJ was not found. A statistically significant difference exists when the pelvic floor descent is evaluated in sitting versus supine position.Conclusion. Our results show that MR Defecography in sitting position may represent a useful tool to correctly diagnose and grade the pelvic organ descent.