Investigation of Defecographic Findings in Patients with Pelvic Outlet Obstructive Disease

PURPOSE: Defecography is a dynamic investigation which can influence clinical decision making in patients with pelvic outlet obstructive disease (POOD). The current study was designed to establish defecographic findings in patients with POOD. Specifically, we sought to assess the physiologic characteristics of categorized types by using anorectal physiologic tests. METHODS: One hundred seven patients (disease group; 45 men, 62 women) with POOD were retrospectively categorized as type I [non-relaxation of puborectalis (NRPR) only, n=19], type II [NRPR and rectocele, n=20], type III [NRPR, rectocele, and dynamic perineal descent (PD), n=17], type IV [deformed rectocele, mild-to-moderate fixed PD, and absence of NRPR, n=29], and type V [rectocele, severe fixed PD, and absence of NRPR, n=20] on the bases of defecographic findings. The ability to evacuate, the frequency/degree of intarectal intussusception (IRI), and the size of the rectocele were evaulated in these defecographic types of POOD. Age, duration of symptoms, and the physiologic findings of anal manometry and EMG/PNTML were compared for the five types. Eighteen healthy volunteers who had no defecation difficulty were used to estimate the normal findings of defecography. RESULTS: The age and the sex showed no significant differences among the types. The duration of symptoms was gradually lengthened from type I to V (P<0.01). The ability to evacuate in patients with POOD was significantly worse (failed to effectively evacuate) compared to that in the healthy volunteers (P<0.01). The frequency of IRI was increased more and more from type I to V (P<0.01). The size of the rectocele was significantly increased in types V compared to the other types (P<0.01). Manometric and neurologic findings, including EMG/PNTML, revealed no significant differences among the types. CONCLUSIONS: Even though there were no specific differences in the findings of the anal manometric and neurologic tests, the evacuation dynamics; were different in the five defecographic categories of patients with POOD. Specifically, these differences were relevants to the presence of NRPR, rectoceles, IRI, and perineal descent.

Characteristic Findings and Their Clinical Appraisal of Proctography and Cinedefecography in Patients with Pelvic Outlet Obstructive Disease

PURPOSE: We were assessed the characteristic findings of defecography and cinedefecography in patients with pelvic outlet obstructive disease, and compared the characteristic physiologic findings between proctography and cinedefecography. METHODS: Physiologic findings of 196 patients who were performed at least two items of physiologic tests were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were categorized as rectocele (Group I: n=119), nonrelaxing puborectalis syndrome (Group II: n=58), rectoanal intussusception (Group III: n=16), significant sigmoidocele (Group IV: n=3). The proctographic and cinedefecographic features were analyzed according to disease categories. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, false positive rate, false negative rate, diagnostic rate, and reproducibility were calculated, and we analyzed the difference between proctography and cinedefecography according to the disease groups. RESULTS: On the proctographic examinations; 1) 112 patients were confirmed as a clinically significant rectocele (n=128, sensitivity; 94%, specificity; 79%, accuracy; 88%, false positive rate; 21%, false negative rate; 6%, kappa; 0.749). 2) A clinically significant nonrelaxing puborectalis were 36 patients (n=73, sensitivity; 62%, specificity; 73%, accuracy; 70%, false positive rate; 27%, false negative rate; 38%, kappa; 0.328). 3) 12 patients were confirmed as significant rectoanal intussusception (n=31, sensitivity; 75%, specificity; 89%, accuracy; 88%, false positive rate; 11%, false negative rate; 25%, kappa; 0.425). 4) 3 patients were confirmed as clinically significant sigmoidocele (n=15, sensitivity; 100%, specificity; 94%, accuracy; 94%, false positive rate; 6%, false negative rate; 0%, kappa; 0.316). On the combination of proctography and cinedefecography; 1) 117 patients were confirmed as a clinically significant rectocele (n=122, sensitivity; 98%, specificity; 94%, accuracy; 96%, false positive rate; 6%, false negative rate; 2%, kappa; 0.925). 2) A clinically significant nonrelaxing puborectalis were 50 patients (n=64, sensitivity; 86%, specificity; 90%, accuracy; 88%, false positive rate; 10%, false negative rate; 14%, kappa; 0.738). 3) 16 patients were confirmed as significant rectoanal intussusception (n=22, sensitivity; 100%, specificity; 97%, accuracy; 97%, false positive rate; 3%, false negative rate; 0%, kappa; 0.826). 4) 3 patients were confirmed as clinically significant sigmoidocele (n=9, sensitivity; 100%, specificity; 97%, accuracy; 97%, false positive rate; 3%, false negative rate; 0%, kappa; 0.488). As compared with combined study (proctography plus cinedefecography), the proctography show decreased diagnostic rates in the evaluation of rectocele (P<0.05), nonrelaxing puborectalis (P<0.01), and rectoanal intussusception (P<0.05). And, the proctography also show increased false positive rate in the evaluation of rectocele (P<0.01), nonrelaxing puborectalis (P<0.01), and rectoanal intussusception (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, proctography showed a tendency to overdiagnosis. Therefore, the combined study of proctography and cinedefecography should be taken as a diagnostic tools for pelvic outlet obstructive disease. Adhering to these findings, other anorectal physiologic studies should be added for the clinically significant diagnosis.