Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Three-Dimensional Endoanal Ultrasonography of the Anorectal Region

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Practical Pelvic Floor Ultrasonography

  • 1040 Accesses

Abstract

Anorectal imaging has become an integral part of the assessment of posterior compartment disorders. Following detailed history and examination, the patient should be offered anal sphincter imaging (either 2D or 3D endoanal ultrasonography). Even though anorectal physiological studies indicate dysfunction of the anal sphincter complex, they do not identify the anatomical site and the degree of anal sphincter disruption. Endoanal ultrasound has been defined the gold standard investigation for detecting anal sphincter injuries in fecal incontinence and it is also used in the follow-up after primary sphincter repair or injection of bulking agents. Endoanal ultrasound represents a good modality for the preoperative and intraoperative investigation of perianal abscesses and fistulas and may guide the surgical treatment. In recent years, echodefecography has been developed as alternative to defecography and dynamic MRI for the evaluation of obstructed defecation syndrome and posterior vaginal wall prolapse.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Dietz HP, Mellgren A, Sultan AH, Shobeiri SA, Stankiewicz A, Bartram C. State of the art: an integrated approach to pelvic floor ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011;37:381–96.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Groenendijk AG, Birnie E, Boeckxstaens GE, Roovens JP, Bonsel GJ. Anorectal function testing and anal endosonography in the diagnostic work-up of patients with primary pelvic organ prolapse. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2009;67:187–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Groenendijk AG, Birnie E, de Blok S, Adriaanse AH, Ankum WM, Roovens JP, Bonsel GJ. Clinical-decision taking in primary pelvic organ prolapse; the effects of diagnostic tests on treatment selection in comparison with a consensus meeting. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:711–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wieczorek AP, Stankiewicz A, Santoro GA, Wozniak MM, Bogusiewicz M, Rechberger T. Pelvic floor disorders: role of new ultrasonographic techniques. World J Urol. 2011;29:615–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Santoro GA, Fortling B. The advantages of volume rendering in three-dimensional endosonography of the anorectum. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50:359–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Santoro GA, Di Falco G. Endoanal and endorectal ultrasonography: methodology and normal pelvic floor anatomy. In: Santoro GA, Wieczorek AP, Bartram C, editors. Pelvic floor disorders imaging and a multidisciplinary approach to management. Milan: Springer; 2010. p. 91–102.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Williams AB, Cheetham MJ, Bartram CI, et al. Gender differences in the longitudinal pressure profile of the anal canal related to anatomical structure as demonstrated on three-dimensional anal endosonography. Br J Surg. 2000;87:1674–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Regadas FSP, Murad-Regadas SM, Lima DMR, et al. Anal canal anatomy showed by three-dimensional anorectal ultrasonography. Surg Endosc. 2007;21:2207–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bollard RC, Gardiner A, Lindow S, Phillips K, Duthie GS. Normal female anal sphincter: difficulties in interpretation explained. Dis Colon Rectum. 2002;45:171–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gold DM, Bartram CI, Halligan S, Humphries KN, Kamm MA, Kmiot WA. Three-dimensional endoanal sonography in assessing anal canal injury. Br J Surg. 1999;86:365–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Frudinger A, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Price AB, Kamm MA, Winter R. Female anal sphincter: age-related differences in asymptomatic volunteers with high-frequency endoanal US. Radiology. 2002;224:417–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. West RL, Felt-Bersma RJF, Hansen BE, Schouten WR, Kuipers EJ. Volume measurement of the anal sphincter complex in healthy controls and fecal-incontinent patients with a three-dimensional reconstruction of endoanal ultrasonography images. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48:540–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Haylen BT, de Ridder D, Freeman RM, Swift SE, Berghmans B, Lee J, Monga A, Petri E, Rizk DE, Sand PK, Schaer GN. An International Urogynecological Association (IUGA)/International Continence Society (ICS) joint report on the terminology for female pelvic floor dysfunction. Int Urogynecol J. 2010;21:5–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Santoro GA. Which method is best for imaging of anal sphincter defects? Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55:646–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Santoro GA, Di Falco G. Endosonographic anatomy of the normal rectum. In: Santoro GA, Di Falco G, editors. Benign anorectal diseases. Diagnosis with endoanal and endorectal ultrasonography and new treatment options. Milan: Springer; 2006. p. 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Macmillan AK, Merrie AE, Marshall RJ, Parry BR. The prevalence of fecal incontinence in community-dwelling adults: a systematic review of the literature. Dis Colon Rectum. 2004;47:1341–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Starck M, Bohe M, Valentin L. Results of endosonographic imaging of the anal sphincter 2–7 days after primary repair of third or fourth-degree obstetric sphincter tears. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2003;22:609–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Norderval S, Dehli T, Vonen B. Three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography: intraobserver and interobserver agreement using scoring systems for classification of anal sphincter defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009;33:337–43.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Voyvodic F, Rieger NA, Skinner S, Schloithe AC, Saccone GT, Sage MR, Wattchow DA. Endosonographic imaging of anal sphincter injury. Does the size of the tear correlate with the degree of dysfunction? Dis Colon Rectum. 2003;46:735–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI. Anal sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1905–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Oberwalder M, Connor J, Wexner SD. Meta-analysis to determine the incidence of obstetric anal sphincter damage. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1333–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Oberwalder M, Dinnewitzer A, Baig MK, Thaler K, Cotman K, Nogueras JJ, Weiss EG, Efron J, Vernava III AM, Wexner SD. The association between late-onset fecal incontinence and obstetric anal sphincter defects. Arch Surg. 2004;139:429–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Starck M, Bohe M, Valentin L. The extent of endosonographic anal sphincter defects after primary repair of obstetric sphincter tear increases over time and is related to anal incontinence. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2006;27:188–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Scheer I, Thakar R, Sultan AH. Mode of delivery after previous obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS)—a reappraisal. Int Urogynecol J. 2009;20:1095–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Savoye-Collet C, Savoye G, Koning E, Thoumas D, Michot F, Denis P, Benozio M. Anal endosonography after sphincter repair: specific patterns related to clinical outcome. Abdom Imaging. 1999;24:569–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Dobben AC, Terra MP, Deutekom M. The role of endoluminal imaging in clinical outcome of overlapping anterior anal sphincter repair in patients with fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:70–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. de la Portilla F, Vega J, Rada R, Segovia-Gonzáles MM, Cisneros N, Maldonado VH, Espinosa E. Evaluation by three-dimensional anal endosonography of injectable silicone biomaterial (PTQ) implants to treat fecal incontinence: long-term localization and relation with the deterioration of the continence. Tech Coloproctol. 2009;13:195–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A, Kohz P, Reiser M. Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic floor descent. Eur Radiol. 1997;7:1309–17.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kaufman HS, Buller JL, Thompson JR, Pannu HK, DeMeester SL, Genadry RR, Bluemke DA, Jones B, Rychcik JL, Cundiff GW. Dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and cystocolpoproctography alter surgical management of pelvic floor disorders. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:1575–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Dvorkin LS, Hetzer F, Scott SM, Williams NS, Gedroyc W, Lunniss PJ. Open-magnet MR defaecography compared with evacuation proctography in the diagnosis and management of patients with rectal intussusception. Colorectal Dis. 2004;6:45–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Barthet M, Portier F, Heyries L. Dynamic anal endosonography may challenge defecography for assessing dynamic anorectal disorders: results of a prospective pilot study. Endoscopy. 2000;32:300–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Van Outryve SM, Van Outryve MJ, De Winter BY, Pelckmans PA. Is anorectal endosonography valuable in dyschesia? Gut. 2002;51:695–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Beer-Gabel M, Teshler M, Schechtman E, Zbar AP. Dynamic transperineal ultrasound vs. defecography in patients with evacuatory difficulty: a pilot study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2004;19:60–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Dietz HP, Steensma AB. Posterior compartment prolapse on two-dimensional and three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound: the distinction between true rectocele, perineal hypermobility and enterocele. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;26:73–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Murad-Regadas SM, Regadas FSP, Rodrigues LV, Souza MHLP, Lima DMR, Silva FRS, Filho FSPR. A novel procedure to assess anismus using three-dimensional dynamic ultrasonography. Colorectal Dis. 2006;9:159–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Murad-Regadas SM, Regadas FSP, Rodrigues LV, Silva FRS, Soares FA, Escalante RD. A novel three-dimensional dynamic anorectal ultrasonography technique (echodefecography) to assess obstructed defecation, a comparison with defecography. Surg Endosc. 2008;22:974–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Regadas FSP, Haas EM, Jorge JM, Sands D, Melo-amaral I, Wexner SD, Lima DM, Murad-Regadas SM. Prospective multicenter trial comparing echodefecography with defecography in the assessment of anorectal dysfunctions in patients with obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54:686–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Murad-Regadas SM, Soares GS, Regadas FSP, Rodrigues LV, Buchen G, Kenmoti VT, Surimã WS, Fernandes GO. A novel three-dimensional dynamic anorectal ultrasonography technique for the assessment of perineal descent, compared with defaecography. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:740–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Parks AG, Gordon PH, Hardcastle JD. A classification of fistula-in-ano. Br J Surg. 1976;63:1–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Buchanan GN, Williams AB, Bartram CI, et al. Potential clinical implications of direction of a trans-sphincteric anal fistula track. Br J Surg. 2003;90:1250–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Law PJ, Talbot RW, Bartram CI, Northover JMA. Anal endosonography in the evaluation of perianal sepsis and fistula in ano. Br J Surg. 1989;76:752–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Poen AC, Felt-Bersma RJF, Eijsbouts QA, et al. Hydrogen peroxide-enhanced transanal ultrasound in the assessment of fistula-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41:1147–52.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Deen KI, Williams JG, Hutchinson R, et al. Fistulas in ano: endoanal ultrasonographic assessment assists decision making for surgery. Gut. 1994;35:391–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Seow-Choen F, Burnett S, Bartram CI, Nicholls RJ. Comparison between anal endosonography and digital examination in the evaluation of anal fistulae. Br J Surg. 1991;78:445–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Cho DY. Endosonographic criteria for an internal opening of fistola-in-ano. Dis Colon Rectum. 1999;42:515–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Santoro GA, Ratto C. Accuracy and reliability of endoanal ultrasonography in the evaluation of perianal abscesses and fistula-in-ano. In: Santoro GA, Di Falco G, editors. Benign anorectal diseases. Milan: Sprinter; 2006. p. 141–57.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. West RL, Dwarkasing S, Felt-Bersma RJF, et al. Hydrogen peroxide-enhanced three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating perianal fistulas: agreement and patient preference. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;16:1319–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Ratto C, Grillo E, Parello A, et al. Endoanal ultrasound-guided surgery for anal fistula. Endoscopy. 2005;37:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Santoro GA, Ratto C, Di Falco G. Three-dimensional reconstructions improve the accuracy of endoanal ultrasonography in the identification of internal openings of anal fistulas. Colorectal Dis. 2004;6 Suppl 2:P214.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Buchanan GN, Halligan S, Bartram CI, et al. Clinical examination, endosonography and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of fistula in ano: comparison with outcome-based reference standard. Radiology. 2004;233:674–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Head Pelvic Floor Unit, 3rd Division of Surgery, Regional Hospital, Piazzale Ospedale 1, 31100, Treviso, Italy

    Giulio A. Santoro M.D., Ph.D.

  2. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine of the Federal University of Cearà, Fortaleza, Cearà, Brazil

    Sthela Murad-Regadas

  3. Head Pelvic Floor Unit, Clinical Hospital, Federal University of Cearà, Fortaleza, Cearà, Brazil

    Sthela Murad-Regadas

Authors
  1. Giulio A. Santoro M.D., Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sthela Murad-Regadas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giulio A. Santoro M.D., Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

    S. Abbas Shobeiri

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Santoro, G.A., Murad-Regadas, S. (2014). Three-Dimensional Endoanal Ultrasonography of the Anorectal Region. In: Shobeiri, S. (eds) Practical Pelvic Floor Ultrasonography. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8426-4_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8426-4_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-8425-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-8426-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation