Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome mimicking rectal neoplasm on MRI

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS): observational case series findings on MR defecography

OBJECTIVE

Radiological findings in solitary rectal ulcer syndrome (SRUS) are well described for evacuation proctography (EP) but sparse for magnetic resonance defecography (MRD). In order to rectify this, we describe the spectrum of MRD findings in patients with histologically proven SRUS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MRD from twenty-eight patients (18 female; 10 males) with histologically confirmed SRUS were identified. MRD employed a 1.5-T magnet and a standardized technique with the rectal lumen filled with gel and imaged sagittally in the supine position, before, during, and after attempted rectal evacuation. A single radiologist observer with 5 years' experience in pelvic floor imaging made the anatomical and functional measurements.

RESULTS

Sixteen patients (10 female) demonstrated internal rectal intussusception and 3 patients (11%) demonstrated complete external rectal prolapse. Anterior rectoceles were noted in 12 female patients (43%). Associated anterior and middle compartment weakness (evidenced by excessive descent) was observed in 18 patients (64%). Cystocele was found in 14 patients (50%) and uterine prolapse was noted in 7 patients (25%). Enterocoeles were detected in 5 patients (18%) and peritoneocoele in 5 patients (18%). None had sigmoidocoele. Sixteen patients (57%) demonstrated delayed voiding and 13 patients (46%) incomplete voiding, suggesting defecatory dyssynergia.

CONCLUSION

MRD can identify and grade both rectal intussusception and dyssynergia in SRUS, and also depict associated anterior and/or middle compartment descent. Distinction between structural and functional findings has important therapeutic implications.

KEY POINTS

MRD can identify and grade both rectal intussusception and dyssynergia in patients with SRUS. MRD is an acceptable substitute to evacuation proctography in assessing anorectal dysfunctions when attempting to avoid ionizing radiation. SRUS influences the pelvic floor globally. MRD depicts associated anterior and/or middle compartment prolapse.

Beyond adenocarcinoma: MRI of uncommon rectal neoplasms and mimickers

OBJECTIVE

To provide a review of rare rectal tumors beyond adenocarcinoma.

RESULTS

Rectal cancer is a common malignancy, both in the United States and abroad. In addition to adenocarcinoma, abdominal radiologists will encounter a variety of other less common rectal masses, both benign and malignant neoplasms as well as non-neoplastic mimickers. Familiarity with these conditions and their characteristic features on MRI is useful in clinical practice. In this article, a number of such conditions are discussed, with an emphasis on distinguishing features on MRI of the rectum.

CONCLUSION

Familiarity with the MRI features of rare rectal tumors beyond adenocarcinoma, as well as a small number of non-neoplastic mimics, is important for abdominal imagers to make diagnostic differentials and to assist in treatment planning.

Imaging features of Benign Perianal lesions

Magnetic resonance imaging provides detailed visualisation, identification and extent assessment of many anal disorders. While many studies are performed in the evaluation of malignant processes such as anorectal carcinoma, the primary focus of this pictorial review is benign lesions, which involve the anal canal and perianal spaces. This pictorial review will illustrate the MRI appearances of a variety of benign conditions, which predominantly affect the anal canal, including abscess, fistulae, lipomas, developmental cysts and inflammatory conditions. MRI aids in the identification and characterisation of these abnormalities, of coexisting complications and differentiation from other perineal abnormalities. This pictorial review highlights the spectrum of non-malignant processes involving the perianal region.

Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Solitary rectal ulcer (SRUS) may mislead the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) or rectal polyps, which may reduce the actual prevalence of it. Various treatments for SRUS have been described that can be referred to therapeutic strategies such as biofeedback, enema of corticosteroid, topical therapy, and rectal mucosectomy. Nevertheless, biofeedback should be considered as the first stage of treatment, while surgical procedures have been offered for those who do not respond to conservative management and biofeedback or those who have total rectal prolapse and rectal full-thickness.

METHODS

A systematic and comprehensive search will be performed using MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar.

RESULTS

The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, our study discusses the factors involved in the pathogenesis, clinical symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, and management of patients. This review can provide recommended strategies in a comprehensive and targeted vision for patients suffering from this syndrome.