Barium Defecating Proctography and Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Proctography: Their Role and Patient's Perception.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of the study were to compare the imaging findings and patient's perception of barium defecating proctography and dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) proctography in patients with pelvic floor disorders.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

This is a prospective study conducted on patients with pelvic floor disorders who consented to undergo both barium proctography and dynamic MR proctography. Imaging findings of both the procedures were compared. Inter-observer agreement (IOA) for key imaging features was assessed. Patient's perception of these procedures was assessed using a short questionnaire and a visual analog scale.

RESULTS:

Forty patients (M: F =19:21) with a mean age of 43.65 years and range of 21-75 years were included for final analysis. Mean patient experience score was significantly better for MR imaging (MRI) (p < 0.001). However, patients perceived significantly higher difficulty in rectal evacuation during MRI studies (p = 0.003). While significantly higher number of rectoceles (p = 0.014) were diagnosed on MRI, a greater number of pelvic floor descent (p = 0.02) and intra-rectal intussusception (p = 0.011) were diagnosed on barium proctography. The IOA for barium proctography was substantial for identifying rectoceles, rectal prolapse and for determining M line, p < 0.001. There was excellent IOA for MRI interpretation of cystoceles, peritoneoceles, and uterine prolapse and substantial to excellent IOA for determining anal canal length and anorectal angle, p < 0.001. The mean study time for the barium and MRI study was 12 minutes and 15 minutes, respectively.

CONCLUSION:

Barium proctography was more sensitive than MRI for detecting pelvic floor descent and intrarectal intussusception. Although patients perceived better rectal emptying with barium proctography, the overall patient experience was better for dynamic MRI proctography.

• Authors: Deepa Rebecca Korula, Anuradha Chandramohan, Reetu John, Anu Eapen
• Journal: Journal of clinical imaging science (J Clin Imaging Sci) Vol. 11 Pg. 31 ( 2021) ISSN: 2156-7514 [Print] United States
• PMID: 34221640 (Publication Type: Journal Article)
• Copyright: © 2021 Published by Scientific Scholar on behalf of Journal of Clinical Imaging Science.