Influence of rectal gel volume on defecation during dynamic pelvic floor magnetic resonance imaging

Abstract Purpose To evaluate effects of altering rectal contrast volume on defecatory effort during magnetic resonance defecography (MRD). Methods We assessed defecation qualitatively and quantitatively as a function of rectal distention (group A: 180 cc, n = 31; group B: 120 cc, n = 31). Quantitati...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical imaging 2015-11, Vol.39 (6), p.1027-1031
Main Authors: Khatri, Gaurav, Bailey, April A, Bacsu, Chasta, Christie, Alana L, Kumar, Neil, Pedrosa, Ivan, Zimmern, Philippe
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acquisitions & mergers
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Defecation - physiology
Defecography - methods
Dynamic pelvic MRI
Dynamics
Female
Gels
Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act 1996-US
Humans
Imaging
Magnetic resonance
Magnetic resonance imaging
Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Middle Aged
MR defecography
NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Patients
Pelvic Floor - pathology
Pelvic organ prolapse
Quantitative evaluation
Radiology
Rectal contrast
Rectal gel
Studies
Ultrasonic imaging
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Purpose To evaluate effects of altering rectal contrast volume on defecatory effort during magnetic resonance defecography (MRD). Methods We assessed defecation qualitatively and quantitatively as a function of rectal distention (group A: 180 cc, n = 31; group B: 120 cc, n = 31). Quantitative evaluation comprised measuring rectal area on midline sagittal images pre- and post-defecation. Results Resting rectal area was significantly higher for group A than for group B (35.2 vs. 28.3 cm2 , P < .0001). Post-defecation rectal area and change in area (pre- to post-defecation) were not significantly different. Subjective evaluation showed no significant difference. Conclusion Decreasing rectal gel volume from 180 to 120 cc did not compromise defecation performance during MRD.
ISSN:0899-7071
1873-4499
DOI:10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.05.018