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

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (10) ◽  
pp. 795-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. P. Martín-Martín ◽  
J. García-Armengol ◽  
J. V. Roig-Vila ◽  
A. Espí-Macías ◽  
V. Martínez-Sanjuán ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Obstructed Defecation ◽  
Obstructed Defecation Syndrome ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Defecography

scholarly journals Retraction Note: Evaluation of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) using magnetic resonance defecography (MRD)

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arshed Hussain Parry ◽  
Abdul Haseeb Wani
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Obstructed Defecation ◽  
Obstructed Defecation Syndrome ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Defecography

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

scholarly journals RETRACTED ARTICLE: Evaluation of obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS) using magnetic resonance defecography (MRD)

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arshed Hussain Parry ◽  
Abdul Haseeb Wani
Keyword(s):  
Magnetic Resonance ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Obstructed Defecation ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Rectal Intussusception ◽  
Obstructed Defecation Syndrome ◽  
Magnetic Resonance Defecography ◽  
Retracted Article ◽  
Age Range

Abstract Background Obstructed defecation syndrome is associated with varying combinations of a host of ano-rectal abnormalities, and no physical examination can demonstrate these abnormalities. The present study was aimed to evaluate the spectrum of various pelvic floor abnormalities in obstructed defecation syndrome (ODS). Results Of the total 302 patients imaged with age range of 18–72 years (mean age 54 years), 218 were females, and 84 were males. Ano-rectal junction descent was the commonest abnormality observed in 273 (90.3%) patients followed by rectocele (232) (76.8%), rectal intussusception (93) (30.7%), and cystocele (92) (30.4%). Cervical descent was observed in 78 (35.7%) of female patients. Spastic perineum was seen in 27 (8.9%) patients. Conclusion MRD serves as single stop shop for demonstrating and grading a gamut of pelvic organ abnormalities underpinning ODS which in turn helps in choosing the best treatment plan for the patient.

scholarly journals Management of patients with rectocele, multiple pelvic floor dysfunctions and obstructed defecation syndrome

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 135-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sthela Maria Murad-Regadas ◽  
Francisco Sergio P. Regadas ◽  
Lusmar Veras Rodrigues ◽  
Graziela Olivia da Silva Fernandes ◽  
Guilherme Buchen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Obstructed Defecation ◽  
Mucosal Prolapse ◽  
Clinical Treatment ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Obstructed Defecation Syndrome ◽  
Group I ◽  
Grade Ii ◽  
Group Ii ◽  
Grade Iii

CONTEXT: Management of patients with obstructed defecation syndrome is still controversial. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the efficacy of clinical, clinical treatment followed by biofeedback, and surgical treatment in patients with obstructed defecation, rectocele and multiple dysfunctions evaluated with echodefecography. METHODS: The study included 103 females aged 26-84 years with obstructed defecation, grade-II/III rectocele and multiple dysfunctions on echodefecography. Patients were distributed into three treatment groups and constipation scores were assigned. Group I: 34 (33%) patients with significant improvement of symptoms through clinical management only. Group II: 14 (14%) with improvement through clinical treatment plus biofeedback. Group III: 55 (53%) referred to surgery due to treatment failure. RESULTS: Group I: 20 (59%) patients had grade-II rectocele, 14 (41%) grade-III. Obstructed defecation syndrome was associated with intussusception (41%), mucosal prolapse (41%), anismus (29%), enterocele (9%) or 2 dysfunctions (23%). The average constipation score decreased significantly from 11 to 5. Group II: 11 (79%) grade-II rectocele, 3 (21%) grade-III, associated with intussusception (7%), mucosal prolapse (43%), anismus (71%) or 2 dysfunctions (29%). There was significant decrease in constipation score from 13 to 6. Group III: 8 (15%) grade-II rectocele, 47 (85%) grade-III, associated with intussusception (42%), mucosal prolapse (40%) or 2 dysfunctions (32%). The constipation score remained unchanged despite clinical treatment and biofeedback. Twenty-three underwent surgery had a significantly decrease in constipation score from 12 to 4. The remaining 32 (31%) patients which 22 refused surgery, 6 had low anal pressure and 4 had slow transit. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 50% of patients with obstructed defecation, rectocele and multiple dysfunctions presented a satisfactory response to clinical treatment and/or biofeedback. Surgical repair was mainly required in patients with grade-III rectocele whose constipation scores remained high despite all efforts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document