Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pelvic Floor Dysfunction
Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Box 359728, 325 9th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA. Electronic address: . Radiologic Clinics of North America
(Impact Factor: 1.98).
11/2013; 51(6):1127-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2013.07.004
Pelvic floor dysfunction is largely a complex problem of multiparous and postmenopausal women and is associated with pelvic floor or organ descent. Physical examination can underestimate the extent of the dysfunction and misdiagnose the disorders. Functional magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is emerging as a promising tool to evaluate the dynamics of the pelvic floor and use for surgical triage and operative planning. This article reviews the anatomy and pathology of pelvic floor dysfunction, typical imaging findings, and the current role of functional MR imaging.
Available from: Rien de Vos
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The primary aim of our study was to determine the interobserver agreement of defecography in diagnosing enterocele, anterior rectocele, intussusception, and anismus in fecal-incontinent patients. The subsidiary aim was to evaluate the influence of level of experience on interpreting defecography.
Defecography was performed in 105 consecutive fecal-incontinent patients. Observers were classified by level of experience and their findings were compared with the findings of an expert radiologist. The quality of the expert radiologist's findings was evaluated by an intraobserver agreement procedure.
Intraobserver agreement was good to very good except for anismus: incomplete evacuation after 30 sec (kappa, 0.55) and puborectalis impression (kappa, 0.54). Interobserver agreement for enterocele and rectocele was good (kappa, 0.66 for both) and for intussusception, fair (kappa, 0.29). Interobserver agreement for anismus: incomplete evacuation after 30 sec was moderate (kappa, 0.47), and for anismus: puborectalis impression was fair (kappa, 0.24). Agreement in grading of enterocele and rectocele was good (kappa, 0.64 and 0.72, respectively) and for intussusception, fair (kappa, 0.39). Agreement separated by experience level was very good for rectocele (kappa, 0.83) and grading of rectoceles (kappa, 0.83) and moderate for intussusception (kappa, 0.44) at the most experienced level. For enterocele and grading, experience level did not influence the reproducibility.
Reproducibility for enterocele, anterior rectocele, and severity grading is good, but for intussusception is fair to moderate. For anismus, the diagnosis of incomplete evacuation after 30 sec is more reproducible than puborectalis impression. The level of experience seems to play a role in diagnosing anterior rectocele and its grading and in diagnosing intussusception.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the value of dynamic pelvic floor MRI relative to standard clinical examinations in treatment decisions made by an interdisciplinary team of specialists in a center for pelvic floor dysfunction.
60 women were referred for dynamic pelvic floor MRI by an interdisciplinary team of specialists of a pelvic floor center. All patients were clinically examined by an urologist, gynecologist, a proctological, and colorectal surgeon. The specialists assessed individually and in consensus, whether (1) MRI provides important additional information not evident by physical examination and in consensus whether (2) MRI influenced the treatment strategy and/or (3) changed management or the surgical procedure.
MRI was rated essential to the treatment decision in 22/50 cases, leading to a treatment change in 13 cases. In 12 cases, an enterocele was diagnosed by MRI but was not detected on physical exam. In 4 cases an enterocele and in 2 cases a rectocele were suspected clinically but not confirmed by MRI. In 4 cases, MRI proved critical in assessment of rectocele size. Vaginal intussusception detected on MRI was likewise missed by gynecologic exam in 1 case.
MRI allows diagnosis of clinically occult enteroceles, by comprehensively evaluating the interaction between the pelvic floor and viscera. In nearly half of cases, MRI changed management or the surgical approach relative to the clinical evaluation of an interdisciplinary team. Thus, dynamic pelvic floor MRI represents an essential component of the evaluation for pelvic floor disorders.
Available from: Humberto Sadanobu Hirakawa
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: The proper evaluation of the pelvic floor muscles (PFM) is essential for choosing the correct treatment. Currently, there is no gold standard for the assessment of female PFM function. Objective: To determine the correlation between vaginal palpation, vaginal squeeze pressure, and electromyographic and ultrasonographic variables of the female PFM. Method: This cross-sectional study evaluated 80 women between 18 and 35 years of age who were nulliparous and had no pelvic floor dysfunction. PFM function was assessed based on digital palpation, vaginal squeeze pressure, electromyographic activity, bilateral diameter of the bulbocavernosus muscles and the amount of bladder neck movement during voluntary PFM contraction using transperineal bi-dimensional ultrasound. The Pearson correlation was used for statistical analysis (p<0.05). Results: There was a strong positive correlation between PFM function and PFM contraction pressure (0.90). In addition, there was a moderate positive correlation between these two variables and PFM electromyographic activity (0.59 and 0.63, respectively) and movement of the bladder neck in relation to the pubic symphysis (0.51 and 0.60, respectively). Conclusions: This study showed that there was a correlation between vaginal palpation, vaginal squeeze pressure, and electromyographic and ultrasonographic variables of the PFM in nulliparous women. The strong correlation between digital palpation and PFM contraction pressure indicated that perineometry could easily be replaced by PFM digital palpation in the absence of equipment.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.