Journal of the anus, rectum and colon · 2024
Diagnostic Ability of Ultrasonography Compared with Computed Tomography for Assessing Rectal Feces.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Misawa Noboru, Matsumoto Masaru, Tsuda Momoko, Tamura Shigeki, Yoshihara Tsutomu, Ashikari Keiichi, Kessoku Takaomi, Ohkubo Hidenori, Higurashi Takuma, Sanada Hiromi, Kato Mototsugu, Nakajima Atsushi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Chronic constipation is a common gastrointestinal disorder, and management is crucial. Computed tomography (CT) is useful for evaluating rectal fecal mass but limited owing to radiation exposure, cost, and inaccessibility at certain facilities. Ultrasonography (US) avoids these pitfalls, but it is unknown whether it accurately assesses rectal feces. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of US compared with CT as the gold standard for assessing rectal feces.
METHODS: We prospectively evaluated rectal fecal mass retention using US performed within 1 h of CT to assess the degree of agreement between methodologies. Rectal stool findings were evaluated on three levels: no stool (R1), presence of stool (R2), and hard stool filling (R3).
RESULTS: The sample included 100 patients (55 men, 45 women), of whom 47 were constipated. The kappa coefficients for rectal content detection were excellent between US and CT (p <0.001). Eighty-two cases (R1: 46 cases; R2: 28 cases; R3: 8 cases) were matched with CT and US findings, and 18 were not. Cases that did not match had low urine or high gas volumes. CT and US findings showed high agreement in constipation (kappa coefficient 0.674, p <0.001) and non-constipation groups (kappa coefficient 0.677, p <0.001). All cases with R3 on CT were found in the constipation group, while more than half of the cases with R1 on CT were in the non-constipation group.
CONCLUSIONS: CT and US showed high agreement in evaluating rectal fecal mass retention, indicating that US can substitute CT.
METHODS: We prospectively evaluated rectal fecal mass retention using US performed within 1 h of CT to assess the degree of agreement between methodologies. Rectal stool findings were evaluated on three levels: no stool (R1), presence of stool (R2), and hard stool filling (R3).
RESULTS: The sample included 100 patients (55 men, 45 women), of whom 47 were constipated. The kappa coefficients for rectal content detection were excellent between US and CT (p <0.001). Eighty-two cases (R1: 46 cases; R2: 28 cases; R3: 8 cases) were matched with CT and US findings, and 18 were not. Cases that did not match had low urine or high gas volumes. CT and US findings showed high agreement in constipation (kappa coefficient 0.674, p <0.001) and non-constipation groups (kappa coefficient 0.677, p <0.001). All cases with R3 on CT were found in the constipation group, while more than half of the cases with R1 on CT were in the non-constipation group.
CONCLUSIONS: CT and US showed high agreement in evaluating rectal fecal mass retention, indicating that US can substitute CT.