Clinical physiology and functional imaging · 2020
The use of dynamic MR imaging in patients with clinical pelvic floor disorders.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Langenbach Marcel C, Park Clara, Vogl Thomas J, Beeres Martin, Scholtz Jan-Erik, Gruber-Rouh Tatjana
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To determine the differences and challenging aspects of dynamic magnetic resonance defecography (MRD) compared to conventional defecography (CD) in diagnostic of clinical symptomatic pelvic floor dysfunction.
METHODS: Fifty patients (44 females, 6 males; mean age: 57 years) with symptomatic pelvic floor dysfunction underwent both examinations, CD and MRD. Results were retrospectively intra-individual and interindividual evaluated in this multicentre study. Visibility and accuracy in diagnosis and classification of rectal prolapse, rectocele, enterocele, sigma diverticula and Cul-de-sac phenomenon/syndrome were observed. Differences were analysed using Mann-Whitney U test. P-values < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant.
RESULTS: CD was significantly superior to MRD in diagnosis and grading of rectal prolapse (p < .001), diagnosis and metric measurements of rectoceles (p = .016), diagnosis of elongated sigmoid colon (p = .008) and Cul-de-sac phenomenon and syndrome, respectively (p = .015; p = .008). MRD revealed equal results to CD in detection, localization, tendency to retention and enlargement of rectoceles (p = .337) and findings of enteroceles (p = .604) as well as sigma diverticula (p = .149).
CONCLUSIONS: The complementary use of both examination methods, CD and MRD, is important to achieve a comprehensive look on every aspect of pelvic floor disorders and gain optimal results in detection and evaluation of all major disorders of the pelvic floor.
METHODS: Fifty patients (44 females, 6 males; mean age: 57 years) with symptomatic pelvic floor dysfunction underwent both examinations, CD and MRD. Results were retrospectively intra-individual and interindividual evaluated in this multicentre study. Visibility and accuracy in diagnosis and classification of rectal prolapse, rectocele, enterocele, sigma diverticula and Cul-de-sac phenomenon/syndrome were observed. Differences were analysed using Mann-Whitney U test. P-values < 0.05 were considered as statistically significant.
RESULTS: CD was significantly superior to MRD in diagnosis and grading of rectal prolapse (p < .001), diagnosis and metric measurements of rectoceles (p = .016), diagnosis of elongated sigmoid colon (p = .008) and Cul-de-sac phenomenon and syndrome, respectively (p = .015; p = .008). MRD revealed equal results to CD in detection, localization, tendency to retention and enlargement of rectoceles (p = .337) and findings of enteroceles (p = .604) as well as sigma diverticula (p = .149).
CONCLUSIONS: The complementary use of both examination methods, CD and MRD, is important to achieve a comprehensive look on every aspect of pelvic floor disorders and gain optimal results in detection and evaluation of all major disorders of the pelvic floor.