The patient's experience of defaecating proctography: Comparing magnetic resonance with conventional fluoroscopy techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Fluoroscopy and MRI are currently used to investigate defaecation and pelvic floor dysfunction, with advantages and disadvantages to both modalities. Anecdotally it is suspected that MRI, allowing more privacy, may be better tolerated by patients but that symptoms may be more easily replicated with fluoroscopic technique due to the physiological position. The aim of this study was to evaluate the patient experience of both techniques to potentially help guide the choice of defaecating proctography modality in the future. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted June 2015-March 2017 in a large teaching hospital. Patients undergoing fluoroscopy (FDP) or MR defaecating proctography (MRDP) completed a post-procedure questionnaire rating their satisfaction (1-5, 5 being most satisfied) of different aspects of the test. RESULTS: 24 patients underwent FDP and 17 MRDP. Both procedures were scored highly in general for all questions with mean >4.1 and median 5, out of 5. Though not statistically significant, the mean scores for all aspects of the test were slightly higher for fluoroscopy than MR. As well as scoring higher for comfort (4.8 vs 4.4) and dignity maintained (4.6 vs 4.1), the patients who underwent fluoroscopy thought it was easier to replicate symptoms than the patient who underwent MR defaecating proctography (4.6 vs 4.2). CONCLUSION: This study shows that both FDP and MRDP are well tolerated in the investigation of defaecation and pelvic floor dysfunction. FDP was scored consistently higher than MRDP, but this was not statistically significant. Thus, this study suggests that patient tolerance of the test is unlikely to be any worse for FDP than for MRDP. Clinicians and radiologists should take into account risks of radiation exposure as well as potential for surgical management when making their decision as to which test is appropriate. The authors recommend that if the patient is unable to replicate their symptoms in MRDP, fluoroscopy should be performed to ensure significant pathology is not being missed.

Accuracy of Four Imaging Techniques for Diagnosis of Posterior Pelvic Floor Disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the diagnostic test accuracy of evacuation proctography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), transperineal ultrasonography, and endovaginal ultrasonography for detecting posterior pelvic floor disorders (rectocele, enterocele, intussusception, and anismus) in women with obstructed defecation syndrome and secondarily to identify the most patient-friendly imaging technique. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 131 women with symptoms of obstructed defecation syndrome underwent evacuation proctogram, MRI, and transperineal and endovaginal ultrasonography. Images were analyzed by two blinded observers. In the absence of a reference standard, latent class analysis was used to assess diagnostic test accuracy of multiple tests with area under the curve (AUC) as the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures were interobserver agreement calculated as Cohen's κ and patient acceptability using a visual analog scale. RESULTS: No significant differences in diagnostic accuracy were found among the imaging techniques for all the target conditions. Estimates of diagnostic test accuracy were highest for rectocele using MRI (AUC 0.79) or transperineal ultrasonography (AUC 0.85), for enterocele using transperineal (AUC 0.73) or endovaginal ultrasonography (AUC 0.87), for intussusception using evacuation proctography (AUC 0.76) or endovaginal ultrasonography (AUC 0.77), and for anismus using endovaginal (AUC 0.95) or transperineal ultrasonography (AUC 0.78). Interobserver agreement for the diagnosis of rectocele (κ 0.53-0.72), enterocele (κ 0.54-0.94) and anismus (κ 0.43-0.81) was moderate to excellent, but poor to fair for intussusception (κ -0.03 to 0.37) with all techniques. Patient acceptability was better for transperineal and endovaginal ultrasonography as compared with MRI and evacuation proctography (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Evacuation proctography, MRI, and transperineal and endovaginal ultrasonography were shown to have similar diagnostic test accuracy. Evacuation proctography is not the best available imaging technique. There is no one optimal test for the diagnosis of all posterior pelvic floor disorders. Because transperineal and endovaginal ultrasonography have good test accuracy and patient acceptability, we suggest these could be used for initial assessment of obstructed defecation syndrome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02239302.

Patients' perception of tests in the assessment of faecal incontinence.

The objective of this study was to evaluate patient perception of endoanal MRI compared with defecography and anorectal functional testing in the workup of patients with faecal incontinence. Consenting consecutive patients underwent a standard testing protocol consisting of endoanal MRI, defecography and anorectal function combination. Patient experience was evaluated with a self-administered questionnaire, addressing anxiety, embarrassment, pain and discomfort, each measured on a 1 (none) to 5 (extreme) point-scale. Patients were also asked to rank the three tests from least to most inconvenient. Statistical analysis was performed with parametric tests. Data from 211 patients (23 men; mean age 59 years (SD+/-12)) were available. MRI had the lowest average score for embarrassment and discomfort (1.6) and defecography the highest (1.9 and 2.0, respectively) (p<0.0001, tested with general linear model for related samples). The average pain score was lowest for MRI (1.4) and highest for the anorectal function combination (1.7) (p<0.0001). Level of anxiety was highest for MRI (1.6 versus 1.4; p = 0.03). MRI was scored as least inconvenient by 69% of patients. Endoanal MRI was scored as least inconvenient. However, the differences in patient burden between the three diagnostic tests were small and absolute values were low for all tests. Patient perception will not be a key feature in determining an optimal diagnostic strategy in faecal incontinence.