European radiology · 2015
Prospective Comparison between two different magnetic resonance defecography techniques for evaluating pelvic floor disorders: air-balloon versus gel for rectal filling.
Сравнительное исследованиеКонтролируемое клиническое 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.
Maccioni Francesca, Al Ansari Najwa, Buonocore Valeria, Mazzamurro Fabrizio, Indinnimeo Marileda, Mongardini Massimo, Catalano Carlo
Аннотация
PURPOSE: to prospectively compare two rectal filling techniques for dynamic MRI of pelvic floor disorders (PFD).
METHODS AND MATERIALS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.
KEY POINTS: • 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.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: 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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSION: 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.
KEY POINTS: • 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.