International journal of colorectal disease · 2015
Comparison of dynamic transperineal ultrasound and defecography for the evaluation of pelvic floor disorders.
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.
Beer-Gabel Marc, Carter Dan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: X-ray defecography is considered the gold standard for imaging pelvic floor pathology. However, it is limited by the capability to demonstrate only the posterior pelvic compartment, significant radiation exposure, and inconvenience. Dynamic transperineal ultrasound (DTP-US) can visualize all of three pelvic floor compartments, is free of radiation, and does not cause significant discomfort. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of consistency between defecography (DEF) and DTP-US in the diagnosis of pelvic floor deformations.
METHODS: One hundred and five women (age 56 ± 11 years) suffering from constipation and fecal incontinence were clinically evaluated and further examined by DEF and DTP-US. The rate of diagnosis of pelvic floor hernias using the DTP-US was compared to that found on DEF.
RESULTS: The specificity for the diagnosis of rectoceles was of 82% for mid-size rectocele and 98% for large rectoceles, and the sensitivity was of 59% for mid-size rectoceles and 50% for larger rectoceles. The sensitivity for the detection of intussusceptions, enteroceles, and rectal prolapse were 82, 74, and 75%, respectively. The specificity was 84% for the detection of intussusception, 92% for enteroceles, and 97% for the diagnosis of rectal prolapse. Higher rates of DTP-US diagnosis were obtained when the intussuscepted rectum moved closer toward the ultrasound probe.
CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of DTP-US was good to excellent and the specificity was high. The added value of this technique in exploring all the compartments of the pelvic floor as well as the perineal muscles makes DTP-US a preferred procedure.
METHODS: One hundred and five women (age 56 ± 11 years) suffering from constipation and fecal incontinence were clinically evaluated and further examined by DEF and DTP-US. The rate of diagnosis of pelvic floor hernias using the DTP-US was compared to that found on DEF.
RESULTS: The specificity for the diagnosis of rectoceles was of 82% for mid-size rectocele and 98% for large rectoceles, and the sensitivity was of 59% for mid-size rectoceles and 50% for larger rectoceles. The sensitivity for the detection of intussusceptions, enteroceles, and rectal prolapse were 82, 74, and 75%, respectively. The specificity was 84% for the detection of intussusception, 92% for enteroceles, and 97% for the diagnosis of rectal prolapse. Higher rates of DTP-US diagnosis were obtained when the intussuscepted rectum moved closer toward the ultrasound probe.
CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of DTP-US was good to excellent and the specificity was high. The added value of this technique in exploring all the compartments of the pelvic floor as well as the perineal muscles makes DTP-US a preferred procedure.