Magnetic resonance defecography versus videodefecography in the study of obstructed defecation syndrome: Is videodefecography still the test of choice after 50 years?

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance (MR) defecography and compare it with videodefecography in the evaluation of obstructed defecation syndrome. METHODS: This was a prospective cohort test accuracy study conducted at one major tertiary referral center on patients with a diagnosis of obstructed defecation syndrome who were referred to the colorectal surgery clinic in a consecutive series from 2009 to 2012. All patients underwent a clinical examination, videodefecography, and MR defecography in the supine position. We analyzed diagnostic accuracy for MR defecography and performed an agreement analysis using Cohen's kappa index (κ) for each diagnostic imaging examination performed with videodefecography and MR defecography. RESULTS: We included 40 patients with Rome III diagnostic criteria of obstructed defecation syndrome. The degree of agreement between the two tests was as follows: almost perfect for anismus (κ = 0.88) and rectal prolapse (κ = 0.83), substantial for enterocele (κ = 0.80) and rectocele grade III (κ = 0.65), moderate for intussusception (κ = 0.50) and rectocele grade II (κ = 0.49), and slight for rectocele grade I (κ = 0.30) and excessive perineal descent (κ = 0.22). Eighteen cystoceles and 11 colpoceles were diagnosed only by MR defecography. Most patients (54%) stated that videodefecography was the more uncomfortable test. CONCLUSIONS: MR defecography could become the imaging test of choice for evaluating obstructed defecation syndrome.

Prospective multicentre clinical trial of stapled transanal rectal resection for obstructive defaecation syndrome.

BACKGROUND: This prospective multicentre study assessed the safety and effectiveness of stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for treatment of obstructive defaecation syndrome (ODS). METHODS: Between February 2001 and June 2006, 104 patients diagnosed with ODS were treated with STARR. Follow-up was scheduled for 1, 3 and 6 months after surgery, and annually thereafter. Variables related to the patient, surgical technique and outcome were analysed. RESULTS: Mean operating time was 46.7 min. Haemorrhage at the staple line occurred in 55 patients (52.9 per cent). Three patients required surgical revision in the first 48 h owing to persistent bleeding. The median postoperative pain score was 2.4 on a scale from 1 to 10. Mean hospital stay was 2.2 days. The mean constipation score improved from 13.5 before surgery to 5.1 at 1-year follow-up (P = 0.006). Twenty-three patients reported faecal incontinence at 4 weeks after surgery, but only nine still had minor residual incontinence by 1 year. At a median follow-up of 26 (range 12-72) months, ODS had recurred or persisted radiologically and/or clinically in 11 patients. CONCLUSION: STARR is associated with low morbidity and a short hospital stay, and is an effective alternative treatment for ODS.

Prevalence and severity of urinary incontinence and pelvic genital prolapse in females with anal incontinence or rectal prolapse.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence, severity, and associations between urinary incontinence and genital prolapse in females after surgery for fecal incontinence or rectal prolapse. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery for fecal incontinence (Group I) or rectal prolapse (Group II) were compared with a control group of females (Group III) by 43 questions regarding demographic data, past medical and surgical history, and diagnosis and treatment of anal and urinary incontinence and genital and rectal prolapse. The type (stress, urge, and total) of urinary incontinence was determined and graded using an incontinence severity questionnaire (Individual Incontinence Impact Questionnaire). RESULTS: Overall response rate in the three groups of patients was 40.1 percent. The questionnaire was sent to 240 patients operated on for fecal incontinence or rectal prolapse, and 83 of them responded (34.5 percent). The patients were distributed into three groups: Group I consisted of 51 patients (mean age 56.7 +/- 14); Group II consisted of 32 patients (69.7 +/- 11); and Group III consisted of 40 patients (60.5 +/- 16). The prevalence of urinary incontinence in Group I was 27 (54 percent), in Group II was 21 (65.6 percent), and Group III was 12 patients (30 percent; P = 0.003). Genital prolapse was present in 9 (17.6 percent), 11 (34.3 percent), and 5 patients (12.5 percent), respectively (P = 0.03). The prevalence of coexistent urinary incontinence and genital prolapse in both study groups was 22.8 percent (19 patients). There were no statistically significant differences between Groups I and II relative to prevalence, type, and severity of urinary incontinence and genital prolapse, but there were significant differences between the two study groups and the control group. Of the patients in the study group, 67 percent had urinary incontinence before or at the time of surgery. CONCLUSION: There is a higher prevalence and severity of urinary incontinence and pelvic genital prolapse in females operated on for either fecal incontinence or rectal prolapse than in a control group. Therefore, female patients with fecal incontinence or rectal prolapse should be evaluated and treated by a multidisciplinary group of pelvic floor clinicians, including a gynecologist or urologist with special training in female pelvic floor dysfunction and a colorectal surgeon.