PWE-379 The measurement and assessment of rectocoele using ultrasound and proctography

Hainsworth, AJ; Collins, Eileen G.; Solanki, Deepa; Griffin, Nyree; Schizas, AM; Williams, AB

doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2015-309861.825

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The clinician performing ultrasound was also blinded to proctogram results. Images were only interpreted by one clinician (we have previously shown a high inter-and intraobserver repeatability for assessment of rectocele and intussusception [40,44]. Another limitation is its retrospective design.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound in pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound in pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The analysis of 324 women determining accuracy of integrated pelvic floor ultrasound in comparison with defacation proctography found the positive predictive value for rectocele and enterocele was 93% and 85% respectively. None of the functionally significant rectoceles were missed on ultrasound though rectoceles appeared larger on proctography (Abstract 179 and 278).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What was hot at the ICS meeting 2015

Hainsworth

Igualada-Martinez

Koch

et al. 2016

Neurourol. Urodynam.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Interrater and intrarater repeatability has not been reported. Although the methods used during ultrasound interpretation have high repeatability, 19,35 previous groups have shown that repeatability for MRI interpretation is less reliable. 36 Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound requires training and expertise.…”

Section: Intussusceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ultrasound: the protrusion of the anterior rectal wall with impingement onto the perineal body on anterior transvaginal scanning 18 ( Figure 1b) and the bulge of the anterior rectal wall into the vagina on transperineal scanning [distance beyond the perineal body ($1 cm significant) 17,[19][20][21] ( Figure 1c)]. …”

Section: Interpretation Of Imagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A senior radiographer (with more than 10 years' experience) explained the procedure and gave instructions to the patient during the scan. Rectocoele MRI: the protrusion of the rectal wall beyond the expected projected anterior anal canal wall 19 ($2 cm significant) 16 ( Figure 1a). A "trapping rectocoele" was retention of gel within the rectocoele despite rectal emptying.…”

Section: Defaecatory Mrimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accuracy of integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound compared to defaecatory MRI in females with pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction

Hainsworth¹,

Pilkington²,

Grierson³

et al. 2016

The British Journal of Radiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cite this article as:Hainsworth AJ, Pilkington SA, Grierson C, Rutherford E, Schizas AMP, Nugent KP, et al. Accuracy of integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound compared to defaecatory MRI in females with pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction. Objective: Defaecatory MRI allows multicompartmental assessment of defaecatory dysfunction but is often inaccessible. Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound (transperineal, transvaginal, endoanal) may provide a cheap, portable alternative. The accuracy of total pelvic floor ultrasound for anatomical abnormalities when compared with defaecatory MRI was assessed. Methods: The dynamic images from 68 females who had undergone integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound and defaecatory MRI between 2009 and 2015 were blindly reviewed. The following were recorded: rectocoele, enterocoele, intussusception and cystocoele. Results: There were 26 rectocoeles on MRI (49 rectocoeles on ultrasound), 24 rectocoeles with intussusception on MRI (19 rectocoeles on ultrasound), 23 enterocoeles on MRI (24 enterocoeles on ultrasound) and 49 cystocoeles on MRI (35 cystocoeles on ultrasound). Sensitivity and specificity of total pelvic floor ultrasound were 81% and 33% for rectocoele, 60% and 91% for intussusception, 65% and 80% for enterocoele and 65% and 84% for cystocoele when compared with defaecatory MRI. This gave a negativepredictive value and positive-predictive value of 74% and 43% for rectocoele, 80% and 79% for intussusception, 82% and 63% for enterocoele and 48% and 91% for cystocoele. Conclusion: Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound may serve as a screening tool for pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction; when normal, defaecatory MRI can be avoided, as rectocoele, intussusception and enterocoele are unlikely to be present. Advances in knowledge: This is the first study to compare integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound with defaecatory MRI. The results support the use of integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound as a screening tool for defaecatory dysfunction.

show abstract

PWE-379 The measurement and assessment of rectocoele using ultrasound and proctography

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound in pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction

Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound in pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction

What was hot at the ICS meeting 2015

Accuracy of integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound compared to defaecatory MRI in females with pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About