ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a magnetic resonance (MR)-based classification system of obstructive defecation syndrome (ODS) to guide physicians in patient management. METHODS: The medical records and imaging series of 105 consecutive patients (90 female, 15 male, aged 21-78 years, mean age 46.1 ± 5.1 years) referred to our center between April 2011 and January 2012 for symptoms of ODS were retrospectively examined. After history taking and a complete clinical examination, patients underwent MR imaging according to a standard protocol using a 0.35 T permanent field, horizontally oriented open-configuration magnet. Static and dynamic MR-defecography was performed using recognized parameters and well-established diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: Sixty-seven out of 105 (64 %) patients found the prone position more comfortable for the evacuation of rectal contrast while 10/105 (9.5 %) were unable to empty their rectum despite repeated attempts. Increased hiatus size, anterior rectocele and focal or extensive defects of the levator ani muscle were the most frequent abnormalities (67.6, 60.0 and 51.4 %, respectively). An MR-based classification was developed based on the combinations of abnormalities found: Grade 1 = functional abnormality, including paradoxical contraction of the puborectalis muscle, without anatomical defect affecting the musculo-fascial structures; Grade 2 = functional defect associated with a minor anatomical defect such as rectocele ≤ 2 cm in size and/or first-degree intussusception; Grade 3 = severe defects confined to the posterior anatomical compartment, including >2 cm rectocele, second- or higher-degree intussusception, full-thickness external rectal prolapse, poor mesorectal posterior fixation, rectal descent >5 cm, levator ani muscle rupture, ballooning of the levator hiatus and focal detachment of the endopelvic fascia; Grade 4 = combined defects of two or three pelvic floor compartments, including cystocele, hysterocele, enlarged urogenital hiatus, fascial tears enterocele or peritoneocele; Grade 5 = changes after failed surgical repair abscess/sinus tracts, rectal pockets, anastomotic strictures, small uncompliant rectum, kinking and/or lateral shift of supra-anastomotic portion and pudendal nerve entrapment. CONCLUSIONS: According to our classification, Grades 1 and 2 may be amenable to conservative therapy; Grade 3 may require surgical intervention by a coloproctologist; Grade 4 would need a combined urogynecological and coloproctological approach; and Grade 5 may require an even more complex multidisciplinary approach. Validation studies are needed to assess whether this MR-based classification system leads to a better management of patients with ODS.
