X-ray video defaecography is superior to magnetic resonance defaecography in the imaging of defaecation disorders

AIM

The aim of this work was to study the technical success and diagnostic capability of magnetic resonance defaecography (MRD) compared with video defaecography (VD).

METHOD

Sixty four women with defaecation disorders underwent both MRD and x-ray VD over 1 year. The assessment by two radiologists in consensus was retrospective and blinded. The technical success of straining and evacuation was evaluated subjectively. The presence of enterocele, intussusception, rectocele and dyssynergic defaecation was analysed according to established criteria, with VD as the standard of reference.

RESULTS

It was found that 62/64 (96.9%) VD studies were technically fully diagnostic compared with 29/64 (45.3%) for MRD. The number of partially diagnostic studies was 1/64 (1.6%) for VD versus 21/64 (32.8%) for MRD, with 1/64 (1.6%) (VD) and 14/64 (21.9%) (MRD) being nondiagnostic. Thirty enteroceles were observed by VD compared with seven in MRD with moderate agreement (κ = 0.41). Altogether 53 intussusceptions were observed by VD compared with 27 by MRD with poor agreement (κ = -0.10 and κ = 0.02 in recto-rectal and recto-anal intussusception, respectively). Moderate agreement (κ = 0.47) was observed in diagnosing rectocele, with 47 cases by VD and 29 by MRD. Dyssynergic defaecation was observed in three patients by VD and in 11 patients by MRD, with slight agreement (κ = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

The technical success and diagnostic capabilities of VD are better than those of MRD. VD remains the method of choice in the imaging of defaecation disorders.

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.

Robot-assisted vs laparoscopic ventral rectopexy for external or internal rectal prolapse and enterocele: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare robot-assisted and laparoscopic ventral rectopexy procedures for posterior compartment procidentia in terms of restoration of the anatomy using magnetic resonance (MR) defaecography.

METHOD

Sixteen female patients (four with total prolapse, twelve with intussusception) underwent robot-assisted ventral mesh rectopexy (RVMR) and 14 female patients (two with prolapse, twelve with intussusception) laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR). Primary outcome measures were perioperative parameters, complications and restoration of anatomy as assessed by MR defaecography, which was performed preoperatively and 3 months after surgery.

RESULTS

Patient demographics, operation length, operating theatre times and length of in-hospital stay were similar between the groups. The anatomical defects of rectal prolapse, intussusception and rectocele and enterocele were similarly corrected after rectopexy in either technique as confirmed with dynamic MR defaecography. A slight residual intussusception was observed in three patients with primary total prolapse (two RVMR vs one LVMR) and in one patient with primary intussusception (RVMR) (P = 0.60). Rectocele was reduced from a mean of 33.0 ± 14.9 mm to 5.5 ± 8.4 mm after RVMR (P < 0.001) and from 24.7 ± 17.5 mm to 7.2 ± 3.2 mm after LVMR (P < 0.001) (RVMR vs LVMR, P = 0.10).

CONCLUSION

Robot-assisted laparoscopic ventral rectopexy can be performed safely and within the same operative time as conventional laparoscopy. Minimally invasive ventral rectopexy allows good anatomical correction as assessed by MR defaecography, with no differences between the techniques.