Defecation versus pre- and post-defecation Valsalva maneuvers for dynamic MR assessment of pelvic floor dysfunction

Magnetic resonance defecography: Post-defecation straining detects more and maximal prolapse in the anterior and middle compartments

OBJECTIVE

To compare pre-defecation straining without rectal gel and post-defecation straining with the defecation phase, and to investigate their roles in evaluating pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

MATERIAL & METHODS

Magnetic Resonance Defecography (MRD) images of 65 patients with a clinical diagnosis of POP were retrospectively reviewed by two independent readers. Measurements were taken at rest, pre-defecation straining without rectal gel, defecation, and post-defecation straining. The presence, sizes, and/or grades of cystocele, uterovaginal prolapse, widened levator hiatus, perineal descent, cul-de-sac hernia, rectocele, and rectal intussusception were evaluated and compared across the four phases.

RESULTS

Compared to pre-defecation straining, both defecation and post-defecation straining detected more cases, larger sizes, and higher grades of prolapse in all compartments. When comparing defecation and post-defecation straining, the latter diagnosed four more cases of cystocele (80 % vs 73.9 %, p = 0.2) with larger size (-34.1 vs -29.0, p < 0.01) and higher grade (p = 0.19). Post-defecation straining also identified eight more cases of uterovaginal prolapse (89.2 % vs 73.9 %, p < 0.01) with larger size (-32.9 vs -26.4, p < 0.01) and higher grade (p < 0.01) compared to defecation. Conversely, defecation detected eight more cases of rectocele (46.2 % vs 33.9 %, p < 0.01) with larger size (9.2 vs 6.2 cm, p < 0.01) and higher grade (p = 0.26).

CONCLUSION

Post-defecation straining effectively depicts the maximal extent of prolapse in the anterior and middle compartments, and should be performed whenever there is a clinical need for a comprehensive assessment of prolapse in these compartments.

Assessment of manometric results following posterior pericervical repair or level I to III surgical procedures

Constipation and obstructive bowel disorders are the most common symptoms of prolapse and posterior defects. Prolapse and obstructive defecation disorders are treated using various surgical techniques to repair posterior defects. This study aimed to evaluate the manometry results of patients before and after reconstructive surgery of the posterior compartment. This retrospective cohort study included 40 women with defecation disorders referred to the Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, an academic center affiliated with Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran, from 2020 to 2021. Data were collected through medical records and a checklist developed by the researcher before and after surgery. All analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 26), with significance at p<0.05. Forty women with a mean age of 49.47±9.66 years participated in this study. The manometry results showed significant differences in patients before and after surgery in parameters such as maximum resting pressure, push test, constipation, straining during defecation, finger support necessity, sensation of incomplete defecation, dyspareunia, and husband's sexual satisfaction (p<0.001). In addition, all patients had a grade 2 or higher posterior compartment prolapse, which improved in all cases after surgery (p<0.0001). Patients' symptoms significantly improved during the 12-month follow-up after DeLancey level 3 to 1 surgery. This type of surgery proved to be an effective surgical intervention without significant complications in the short-term follow-up.

[Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvic floor: Technical aspects]

BACKGROUND

Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvic floor plays a key role in imaging complex pelvic floor dysfunction. High-quality examination is crucial for diagnostic benefit but can be technically challenging.

OBJECTIVES

The most important technical aspects (patient selection, patient preparation, MRI technology, MRI scan protocol, success control) for obtaining a state-of-the-art dynamic MRI of the pelvic floor are summarized.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Review of the scientific literature on dynamic pelvic MR imaging with special consideration of the joint recommendations provided by the expert panels of European Society of Urogenital Radiology/European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESUR/ESGAR) in 2016 and Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) in 2019.

RESULTS

Examination with at least 1.5 T and a surface coil after rectal instillation of ultrasound gel is clinical standard. Dynamic MRI in a closed magnet with the patient in supine position is the most widespread technique. No clinically significant pathologies of the pelvic floor are missed compared to the sitting position in an open magnet. The minimum scan protocol should encompass static, high-resolution T2-imaging (i.e., T2-TSE) in three planes and dynamic sequences with high temporal resolution in sagittal (and possibly axial) plane (i.e., steady-state or balanced steady-state free precession) during squeezing, straining and evacuation. Detailed patient instruction and practicing prior to the scan improve patients' compliance and hence diagnostic quality.

CONCLUSIONS

A technically flawless dynamic MRI of the pelvic floor according to these standards can provide information missed by other imaging modalities and hence alter therapeutic strategies.

Pelvic organ movements in asymptomatic nulliparous and symptomatic premenopausal women with pelvic organ prolapse in dynamic MRI: a feasibility study comparing midsagittal single-slice with multi-slice sequences

PURPOSE

To compare multi-slice (MS) MRI sequences of the pelvis acquired at rest and straining to dynamic midsagittal single-slice (SS) sequences for the assessment of pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

METHODS

This IRB-approved prospective single-center feasibility study included 23 premenopausal symptomatic patients with POP and 22 asymptomatic nulliparous volunteers. MRI of the pelvis at rest and straining was performed with midsagittal SS and MS sequences. Straining effort, visibility of organs and POP grade were scored on both. Organ points (bladder, cervix, anorectum) were measured. Differences between SS and MS sequences were compared with Wilcoxon test.

RESULTS

Straining effort was good in 84.4% on SS and in 64.4% on MS sequences (p = 0.003). Organ points were always visible on MS sequences, whereas the cervix was not fully visible in 31.1-33.3% on SS sequences. At rest, there were no statistically significant differences of organ point measurements between SS and MS sequences in symptomatic patients. At straining, positions of bladder, cervix, and anorectum were + 1.1 cm (± 1.8 cm), - 0.7 cm (± 2.9 cm), and + 0.7 cm (± 1.3 cm) on SS and + 0.4 mm (± 1.7 cm), - 1.4 cm (± 2.6 cm), and + 0.4 cm (± 1.3 cm) on MS sequences (p < 0.05). Only 2 cases of higher-grade POP were missed on MS sequences (both with poor straining effort).

CONCLUSION

MS sequences increase the visibility of organ points compared to SS sequences. Dynamic MS sequences can depict POP if images are acquired with sufficient straining effort. Further work is needed to optimize the depiction of the maximum straining effort with MS sequences.

Current diagnostic tools and treatment modalities for rectal prolapse

Rectal prolapse is a circumferential, full-thickness protrusion of the rectum through the anus. It is a rare condition, and only affects 0.5% of the general population. Multiple treatment modalities have been described, which have changed significantly over time. Particularly in the last decade, laparoscopic and robotic surgical approaches with different mobilization techniques, combined with medical therapies, have been widely implemented. Because patients have presented with a wide range of complaints (ranging from abdominal discomfort to incomplete bowel evacuation, mucus discharge, constipation, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence), understanding the extent of complaints and ruling out differential diagnoses are essential for choosing a tailored surgical procedure. It is crucial to assess these additional symptoms and their severities using preoperative scoring systems. Additionally, radiological and physiological evaluations may explain some vague symptoms and reveal concomitant pelvic disorders. However, there is no consensus on or standardization of the optimal extent of dissection, type of procedure, and materials used for rectal fixation; this makes providing maximum benefits to patients with minimal complications difficult. Even recent publications and systematic reviews have not recommended the most appropriate treatment options. This review explains the appropriate diagnostic tools for different conditions and summarizes the current treatment approaches based on existing literature and expert opinions.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pelvic Floor Dysfunction in Females

Pelvic floor disorders including pelvic organ prolapse (POP), urinary dysfunction, defecatory dysfunction, and complications after pelvic floor surgery are relatively common in the female population. Imaging tests are obtained when the initial clinical evaluation is thought to be incomplete or inconclusive or demonstrates findings that are discordant with patients' symptoms. An integrated imaging approach is optimal to evaluate the complex anatomy and dynamic functionality of the pelvic floor. Fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography (CCP) and MR defecography are considered the initial imaging tests of choice for evaluation of POP. Fluoroscopic voiding cystourethrography is considered the initial imaging test for patients with urinary dysfunction. Fluoroscopic CCP and MR defecography are considered the initial imaging test for patients with defecatory dysfunction, whereas ultrasound pelvis transrectal is a complementary test in patients requiring evaluation for anal sphincter defects. MRI pelvis without and with intravenous contrast, MRI pelvis with dynamic maneuvers, and MR defecography are considered the initial imaging tests in patients with suspected complications of prior pelvic floor surgical repair. Transperineal ultrasound is emerging as an important imaging tool, in particular for screening of pelvic floor dysfunction and for evaluation of midurethral slings, vaginal mesh, and complications related to prior pelvic floor surgical repair. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Consensus Definitions and Interpretation Templates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Defecatory Pelvic Floor Disorders: Proceedings of the Consensus Meeting of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the Society of Abdominal Radiology, the International Continence Society, the American Urogynecologic Society, the International Urogynecological Association, and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons

The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium (PFDC) is a multidisciplinary organization of colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, urologists, gynecologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, physiotherapists, and other advanced care practitioners. Specialists from these fields are all dedicated to the diagnosis and management of patients with pelvic floor conditions, but they approach, evaluate, and treat such patients with their own unique perspectives given the differences in their respective training. The PFDC was formed to bridge gaps and enable collaboration between these specialties. The goal of the PFDC is to develop and evaluate educational programs, create clinical guidelines and algorithms, and promote high quality of care in this unique patient population. The recommendations included in this article represent the work of the PFDC Working Group on Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pelvic Floor Disorders (members listed alphabetically in Table 1). The objective was to generate inclusive, rather than prescriptive, guidance for all practitioners, irrespective of discipline, involved in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pelvic floor disorders.

Clinical applications of pelvic floor imaging: opinion statement endorsed by the society of abdominal radiology (SAR), American Urological Association (AUA), and American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS)

Pelvic floor dysfunction is prevalent, with multifactorial causes and variable clinical presentations. Accurate diagnosis and assessment of the involved structures commonly requires a multidisciplinary approach. Imaging is often complementary to clinical assessment, and the most commonly used modalities for pelvic floor imaging include fluoroscopic defecography, magnetic resonance defecography, and pelvic floor ultrasound. This collaboration opinion paper was developed by representatives from multiple specialties involved in care of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction (radiologists, urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons). Here, we discuss the utility of imaging techniques in various clinical scenarios, highlighting the perspectives of referring physicians. The final draft was endorsed by the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR), American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS), and the American Urological Association (AUA).

Variability in utilization and techniques of pelvic floor imaging: findings of the SAR pelvic floor dysfunction disease-focused panel

Pelvic floor disorders are common and can negatively impact quality of life. Imaging of patients with pelvic floor disorders has been extremely heterogeneous between institutions due in part to variations in clinical expectations, technical considerations, and radiologist experience. In order to assess variations in utilization and technique of pelvic floor imaging across practices, the society of abdominal radiology (SAR) disease-focused panel on pelvic floor dysfunction developed and administered an online survey to radiologists including the SAR membership. Results of the survey were compared with published recommendations for pelvic floor imaging to identify areas in need of further standardization. MRI was the most commonly reported imaging technique for pelvic floor imaging followed by fluoroscopic defecography. Ultrasound was only used by a small minority of responding radiologists. The survey responses demonstrated variability in imaging utilization, patient referral patterns, imaging protocols, patient education, and interpretation and reporting of pelvic floor imaging examinations. This survey highlighted inconsistencies in technique between institutions as well as potential gaps in knowledge that should be addressed to standardize evaluation of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction.