Dynamic MR defecography of the posterior compartment: Comparison with conventional X-ray defecography.

PURPOSE

The goal of this study was to compare conventional X-ray defecography and dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) defecography in the diagnosis of pelvic floor prolapse of the posterior compartment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty women with a mean age of 65.5 years (range: 53-72 years) who underwent X-ray defecography and MR defecography for clinical suspicion of posterior compartment dysfunction, were included in this retrospective study. X-ray defecography and dynamic MR defecography were reviewed separately for the presence of pelvic organ prolapse. The results of the combination of X-ray defecography and MR defecography were used as the standard of reference. Differences in sensitivities between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were compared using the McNemar test.

RESULTS

With the gold standard, we evidenced a total of 22 cases of peritoneocele (17 elytroceles, 3 hedroceles and 2 elytroceles+hedroceles), including 15 cases of enterocele, 28 patients with rectocele including 16 that retained contrast, 37 cases of rectal prolapse, and 11 cases of anismus. The sensitivities of X-ray defecography were 90.9% for the diagnosis of peritoneocele, 71.4% for rectocele, 81.1% for rectal prolapse and 63.6% for anismus. The sensitivities of MR defecography for the same diagnoses were 86.4%, 78.6%, 62.2% and 63.6%, respectively. For all these pathologies, no significant differences between X-ray defecography and MR defecography were found.

CONCLUSION

Dynamic MR defecography is equivalent to X-ray defecography for the diagnosis of abnormalities of the posterior compartment of the pelvic floor.