Diagnostic and interventional imaging · 2017
Dynamic MR defecography of the posterior compartment: Comparison with conventional X-ray defecography.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Poncelet E, Rock A, Quinton J-F, Cosson M, Ramdane N, Nicolas L, Feldmann A, Salleron J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to compare conventional X-ray defecography and dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) defecography in the diagnosis of pelvic floor prolapse of the posterior compartment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty women with a mean age of 65.5 years (range: 53-72 years) who underwent X-ray defecography and MR defecography for clinical suspicion of posterior compartment dysfunction, were included in this retrospective study. X-ray defecography and dynamic MR defecography were reviewed separately for the presence of pelvic organ prolapse. The results of the combination of X-ray defecography and MR defecography were used as the standard of reference. Differences in sensitivities between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were compared using the McNemar test.
RESULTS: With the gold standard, we evidenced a total of 22 cases of peritoneocele (17 elytroceles, 3 hedroceles and 2 elytroceles+hedroceles), including 15 cases of enterocele, 28 patients with rectocele including 16 that retained contrast, 37 cases of rectal prolapse, and 11 cases of anismus. The sensitivities of X-ray defecography were 90.9% for the diagnosis of peritoneocele, 71.4% for rectocele, 81.1% for rectal prolapse and 63.6% for anismus. The sensitivities of MR defecography for the same diagnoses were 86.4%, 78.6%, 62.2% and 63.6%, respectively. For all these pathologies, no significant differences between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were found.
CONCLUSION: Dynamic MR defecography is equivalent to X-ray defecography for the diagnosis of abnormalities of the posterior compartment of the pelvic floor.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty women with a mean age of 65.5 years (range: 53-72 years) who underwent X-ray defecography and MR defecography for clinical suspicion of posterior compartment dysfunction, were included in this retrospective study. X-ray defecography and dynamic MR defecography were reviewed separately for the presence of pelvic organ prolapse. The results of the combination of X-ray defecography and MR defecography were used as the standard of reference. Differences in sensitivities between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were compared using the McNemar test.
RESULTS: With the gold standard, we evidenced a total of 22 cases of peritoneocele (17 elytroceles, 3 hedroceles and 2 elytroceles+hedroceles), including 15 cases of enterocele, 28 patients with rectocele including 16 that retained contrast, 37 cases of rectal prolapse, and 11 cases of anismus. The sensitivities of X-ray defecography were 90.9% for the diagnosis of peritoneocele, 71.4% for rectocele, 81.1% for rectal prolapse and 63.6% for anismus. The sensitivities of MR defecography for the same diagnoses were 86.4%, 78.6%, 62.2% and 63.6%, respectively. For all these pathologies, no significant differences between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were found.
CONCLUSION: Dynamic MR defecography is equivalent to X-ray defecography for the diagnosis of abnormalities of the posterior compartment of the pelvic floor.