Defecating Disorders: A Common Cause of Constipation in Women

Defecating proctography: A pictorial essay

OBJECTIVES

To provide an illustrative description of the technique and spectrum of findings in defecating proctography.

KEY FINDINGS

Important findings on defecating proctography include rectocoele, enterocoele, sigmoidocoele, cystocoele, intussusception, rectal prolapse, descending perineum, incomplete emptying, anismus, and faecal incontinence. This review article illustrates these key findings with examples.

CONCLUSION

Defecating proctography is a well-established and cost-effective method of assessing disordered defecation. In conjunction with clinical information and other diagnostic tests, findings on defecating proctography can guide appropriate multidisciplinary management and may lead to improvement in embarrassing and debilitating symptoms in many patients.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This review article provides a suggested technique and covers the spectrum of findings on defecating proctography.

MR defecography technique: recommendations of the society of abdominal radiology's disease-focused panel on pelvic floor imaging

PURPOSE

To develop recommendations for magnetic resonance (MR) defecography technique based on consensus of expert radiologists on the disease-focused panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR).

METHODS

An extensive questionnaire was sent to a group of 20 experts from the disease-focused panel of the SAR. The questionnaire encompassed details of technique and MRI protocol used for evaluating pelvic floor disorders. 75% agreement on questionnaire responses was defined as consensus.

RESULTS

The expert panel reached consensus for 70% of the items and provided the basis of these recommendations for MR defecography technique. There was unanimous agreement that patients should receive coaching and explanation of commands used during MR defecography, the rectum should be distended with contrast agent, and that sagittal T2-weighted images should include the entire pelvis within the field of view. The panel also agreed unanimously that IV contrast should not be used for MR defecography. Additional areas of consensus ranged in agreement from 75 to 92%.

CONCLUSION

We provide a set of consensus recommendations for MR defecography technique based on a survey of expert radiologists in the SAR pelvic floor dysfunction disease-focused panel. These recommendations can be used to develop a standardized imaging protocol.

Comparative study of magnetic resonance defaecography and evacuation proctography in the evaluation of obstructed defaecation

AIM

Obstructed defaecation syndrome is a common condition of multifactorial aetiology and requires specialized evaluation. Accurate and reproducible pelvic floor imaging is imperative for multidisciplinary decision-making. Evacuation proctography (EP) and magnetic resonance defaecography (MRD) are the main imaging modalities used to assess dynamic pelvic floor function. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the findings and acceptability of MRD and EP in the same cohort of patients.

METHOD

This was a prospective comparative study of MRD vs EP in 55 patients with obstructed defaecation syndrome in a single National Health Service Foundation Trust.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were recruited and underwent both EP and MRD. Detection rates for rectocoele were similar (82% vs 73%, P = 0.227), but EP revealed a significantly higher number of trapping rectocoeles compared to MRD (75% vs 31%, P < 0.001). EP detected more rectal intussusceptions than MRD (56% vs 35%, P = 0.023). MRD appeared to underestimate the size of the identified rectocoele, although it detected a significant number of anatomical abnormalities in the middle and anterior pelvic compartment not seen on EP (1.8% enterocoele, 9% peritoneocoele and 20% cystocoele). Patients achieved higher rates of expulsion of rectal contrast during EP compared to MRD, but this difference was not significant (76% vs 64% in MRD, P = 0.092). Of the two studies, patients preferred MRD.

CONCLUSIONS

MRD provides a global assessment of pelvic floor function and anatomical abnormality. MRD is better tolerated by patients but it is not as sensitive as EP in detecting trapping rectocoeles and intussusceptions.