Advertisement

Classification of Internal and External Rectal Prolapse

  • Fabio Pomerri
  • Pier Carlo Muzzio

Abstract

Physical examination has traditionally been, and continues to be, the mandatory initial step in the evaluation of patients with constipation or faecal incontinence. This is because the initial treatment decision and the necessity of further investigations of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction depend on primary clinical assessment of the patient [1]. Even if authors [2] found good correlation between clinical assessment and defecography in high-grade intussusceptions when studying subjects with defecatory difficulties, several reports in the nonradiologic literature have documented the relative insensitivity of the history and physical examination in diagnosing the cause of constipation and detecting pelvic organ prolapse [11, 3, 4, 5, 6]. The common clinical physical examination tends to underestimate the degree of prolapse and may be able to diagnose only 30–40% of rectal prolapse [7]. Therefore, the precise preoperative diagnosis supplied by defecography can help in the selection of a rationale treatment programme, placing the patient into a treatment-defined group, determining the type of operation and giving objective evidence for the corrective scope and degree of operation.

Keywords

Pelvic Floor Pelvic Organ Prolapse Anal Canal Rectal Prolapse Rectal Wall 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Altringer WE, Saclarides TJ, Dominguez JM et al (1995) Four-contrast defecography: pelvic “floor-oscopy”. Dis Colon Rectum 38:695–699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Siproudhis L, Ropert A, Vilotte J et al (1993) How accurate is clinical examination in diagnosing and quantifying pelvirectal disorders? A prospective study in a group of 50 patients complaining of defecatory difficulties. Dis Colon Rectum 36:430–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borowitz SM, Sutphen J, Ling W et al (1996) Lack of correlation of anorectal manometry with symptoms of chronic childhood constipation and encopresis. Dis Colon Rectum 39:400–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grotz RL, Pemberton JH, Talley NJ et al (1994) Discriminant value of physiological distress, symptoms profiles, and segmental colonic dysfunction in outpatients with severe constipation. Gut 35:798–802PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Merkel IS, Locher J, Burgio K et al (1993) Physiologic and psychologic characteristics of an elderly population with chronic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 88:1854–1859PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hock D, Lombard R, Jehaes C et al (1993) Colpocystodefecography. Dis Colon Rectum 36:1015–1021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liberman H, Hughes C, Dippolito A (2000) Evaluation and outcome of the Delorme procedure in the treatment of rectal outlet obstruction. Dis Colon Rectum 43:188–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shorvon PJ, McHugh S, Diamant NE et al (1989) Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications, Gut 30:1737–1749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pomerri F, Zuliani M, Mazza C et al (2001) Defecographic measurements of rectal intussusception and prolapse in patients and in asymptomatic subjects. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:641–645PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    McGee SG, Bartram CI (1993) Intra-anal intussusception: diagnosis by posteroanterior stress proctography. Abdom Imaging 18:136–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bartram CI, Turnbull GK, Lennard-Jones JE (1988) Evacuation proctography: an investigation of rectal expulsion in 20 subjects without defecatory disturbance. Gastrointest Radiol 13:72–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mellgren A, Bremmer S, Johansson C et al (1994) Defecography. Results of investigations in 2,816 patients. Dis Colon rectum 37:1133–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dvorkin LS, Gladman MA, Epstein J et al (2005) Rectal intussusception in symptomatic patients is different from that in asymptomatic volunteers. Br J Surg 92:866–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lowry AC, Simmang CL, Boulos P et al (2001) Consensus statement of definitions for anorectal physiology and rectal cancer: report of the Tripartite Consensus Conference on Definitions for Anorectal Physiology and Rectal Cancer, Washington, DC, May 1, 1999. Dis Colon Rectum 44:915–919PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Choi JS, Hwang YH, Salum MR el al (2001) Outcome and management of patients with large rectoanal intussusception. Am J Gastroenterol 96:740–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stoker J, Rociu E, Wiersma TG et al (2000) Imaging of anorectal disease. Br J Surg 87:10–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bremmer S, Udén R, Mellgren A (1997) Defaeco-peritoneography in the diagnosis of rectal intussusception and rectal prolapse. Acta Radiol 38:578–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Roos JE, Weishaupt D, Wildermuth S et al (2002) Experience of 4 years with open MR defecography: pictorial review of anorectal anatomy and disease. Radiographics 22:817–832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spence-Jones C, Kamm MA, Henry MM et al (1994) Bowel dysfunction: a pathogenic factor in uterovaginal prolapse and urinary stress incontinence. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 101:147–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Chiumarulo C et al (1999) Treatment of external anorectal mucosal prolapse with circular stapler: an easy and effective new surgical technique. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1102–1105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bartram C (2003) Dynamic evaluation of the anorectum. Radiol Clin North Am 41:425–441PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stoker J, Bartram CI, Halligan S (2002) Imaging of the posterior pelvic floor. Eur Radiol 12:779–788PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pescatori M, Quondamcarlo C (1999) A new grading of rectal internal mucosal prolapse and its correlation with diagnosis and treatment. Int J Colorectal Dis 14:245–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bouchoucha M, Devroede G, Faye A et al (2006) Colonic response to food in constipation. Int J Colorectal Dis 21:826–833PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rao SSC, Ozturk R, Laine L (2005) Clinical utility of diagnostic tests for constipation in adults: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 100:1605–1615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mollen RM, Kuijpers HC, Claassen T (2001) Colectomy for slow-transit constipation: preoperative functional evaluation is important but not a guarantee for a successful outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 44:577–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nam YS, Pikarsky AJ, Wexner SD et al (2001) Reproducibility of colonic transit study in patients with chronic constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 44:86–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Prokesch RW, Breitenseher MJ, Kattenbach J et al (1999) Assessment of chronic constipation: colon transit time versus defecography. Eur J Radiol 32:197–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karasick S, Ehrlich SM (1996) Is constipation a disorder of defecation or impaired motility?: distinction based on defecography and colonic transit studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:63–66PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pomerri F, Frigo AC, Grigoletto F et al (2007) Error count of radiopaque markers in colonic segmental transit time study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:W56–W59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bouchoucha M, Devroede G, Arhan P et al (1992) What is the meaning of colorectal transit time measurement? Dis Colon Rectum 35:773–782PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Farouk R, Duthie GS (1998) Rectal prolapse and rectal invagination. Eur J Surg 164:323–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Karlbom U, Graf W, Nilsson S et al (2004) The accuracy of clinical examination in the diagnosis of rectal intussusception. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1533–1538PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ikenberry S, Lappas JC, Hana MP et al (1996) Defecography in healthy subjects: comparison of three contrast media. Radiology 201:233–238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Goei R, van Engelshoven J, Schouten H et al (1989) Anorectal function: defecographic measurement in asymptomatic subjects. Radiology 173:137–141PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dobben AC, Wiersma TG, Janssen LW et al (2005) Prospective assessment of interobserver agreement for defecography in fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:1166–1172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ihre T, Seligson U (1975) Intussusception of the rectum-internal procidentia: treatment and results in 90 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 18:391–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mellgren A, Schultz I, Johansson C et al (1997) Internal rectal intussusception seldom develops into total rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 40:817–820PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kelvin FM, Hale DS, Maglinte DD et al (1999) Female pelvic organ prolapse: diagnostic contribution of dynamic cystoproctography and comparison with physical examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:31–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maglinte DD, Kelvin FM, Fitzgerald K et al (1999) Association of compartment defects in pelvic floor dysfunction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:439–444PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Halligan S, Spence-Jones C, Kamm MA et al (1996) Dynamic cystoproctography and physiological testing in women with urinary stress incontinence and urogenital prolapse. Clin Radiol 1996 51:785–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hale DS et al (2000) Female pelvic organ prolapse: a comparison of triphasic dynamic MR imaging and triphasic fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:81–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Healy JC, Halligan S, Reznek RH et al (1997) Dynamic MR imaging compared with evacuation proctography when evaluating anorectal configuration and pelvic floor movement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:775–779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kenton K, Shott S, Brubaker L (1997) Vaginal topography does not correlate well with visceral position in women with pelvic organ prolapse. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 8:336–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Thornbury JR (1999) Intermediate outcomes: diagnostic and therapeutic impact. Acad Radiol 6(Suppl 1):S58–S65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mackenzie R, Dixon AK (1995) Measuring the effects of imaging: an evaluative framework. Clin Radiol 50:513–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fryback DG, Thornbury JR (1991) The efficacy of diagnostic imaging. Med Decis Making 11:88–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bartram CI (2005) Functional anorectal imaging. Abdom Imaging 30:195–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Dixon AK (1997) Evidence-based diagnostic radiology. Lancet 350:509–512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Harvey CJ, Halligan S, Bartram CI et al (1999) Evacuation proctography: a prospective study of diagnostic and therapeutic effects. Radiology 211:223–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Halverson AL, Orkin BA (1998) Which physiologic tests are useful in patients with constipation? Dis Colon Rectum 41:735–739PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Pomerri
    • 1
  • Pier Carlo Muzzio
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical Diagnostic Sciences and Special Therapies, RadiologyUniversity HospitalPaduaItaly
  2. 2.IRCCS-Istituto Oncologico Veneto and Department of Medical Diagnostic Sciences and Special Therapies, RadiologyUniversity HospitalPaduaItaly

Personalised recommendations