Advertisement

Dynamic Transperineal Ultrasonography

  • Andrew P. Zbar
  • Marc Beer-Gabel

Abstract

In assessing patients who present as the final common pathway with the symptom complex of evacuatory dysfunction, there is general recognition that the vast majority of them have a multiplicity of pelvic-floor and perineal soft-tissue abnormalities across compartments. A dynamic imaging modality is required to define the real-time integration of these anomalies and to highlight their significance in each case, particularly when there is clinical or radiographic evidence of a dominant pathology and where corrective surgery is contemplated. Dynamic transperineal ultrasound (DTP-US) is a simple, radiation-free, inexpensive, and learnable technique that highlights pathology in each pelvic compartment and the interplay between compartments during straining and simulated bolus defecation. Another significant advantage of the technique is its ability to demonstrate tissues that lie well beyond the focal distance of an endoanal probe. Studies on selected patient subgroups with complex evacuatory difficulty are awaited that compare DTP-US with its counterpart, dynamic magnetic resonance (MR) imaging. We suggest that using DTP-US for realtime assessment of pelvic-floor function is best performed by the clinician managing the case or in close collaboration with the radiologist for the best potential clinical outcome. Consideration should be given to its formal accreditation by coloproctologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, gynecologists, and biofeedback therapists.

Keywords

Pelvic Floor Anal Sphincter Rectal Prolapse External Anal Sphincter Internal Anal Sphincter 
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.
    Schaer GN, Koechli OR, Scheussler B, Haller U (1995) Perineal ultrasound for evaluating the bladder neck in urinary stress incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 85:220–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beer-Gabel M, Frudinger A, Zbar A (2005) Dynamic transperineal ultrasound and transvaginal sonography. In: Wexner SD, Zbar AP, Pescatori M (eds) Complex anorectal disorders: investigation and management. Springer, London, pp 246–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Quinn MJ, Beynon J, Mortensen NJ, Smith PJ (1988) Transvaginal endosonography: a new method to study the anatomy of the lower urinary tract in urinary stress incontinence. Br J Urol 62:414–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Koebl H, Bernaschek G, Dentinger J (1990) Assessment of female urinary incontinence by introital sonography. J Clin Ultrasound 18:370–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pittman JS, Benson JT, Sumners JE (1990) Physiological evaluation of the anorectum: a new ultrasound technique. Dis Colon Rectum 33:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sultan AH, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA et al (1993) Anal endosonography and correlation with in vitro and in vivo anatomy. Br J Surg 80:508–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN et al (1993) Anal sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 329:1905–1911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Beer-Gabel M, Teshler M, Barzilai N et al (2002) Dynamic trans-perineal ultrasound (DTP-US) in the diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders: a pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum 45:239–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kleinübing H Jr, Janini JF, Malafaia O et al (2000) Transperineal ultrasonography: new method to image the anorectal region. Dis Colon Rectum 43:1572–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roche B, Fransioli A, Deleaval J, Marti MC (2001) Comparison of transanal and external perineal ultrasonography. Eur Radiol 11:1165–1170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Piloni V (2001) Dynamic imaging of the pelvic floor with transperineal sonography. Techn Coloproct 5:103–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sultan AH, Loder PB, Bartram CI et al (1994) Vaginal endosonography: new approach to image the undisturbed anal sphincter. Dis Colon Rectum 37:1296–1299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frudinger A, Bartram CI, Kamm MA (1997) Transvaginal versus anal endosonography for detecting damage to the anal sphincter. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:1435–1438PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Frudinger A, Zbar AP (2005) Transvaginal endosonography in the assessment of the anorectal sphincter. In: Wexner SD, Zbar AP, Pescatori M (eds) Complex anorectal disorders: investigation and management. Springer, London, 258–262Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sarnelli G, Bosio C, Ciccarelli G et al (2000) Sonographic anatomy of the posterior perineum: technique and methodology. Ital J Coloproct 2:39–43Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beer-Gabel M, Zbar AP (2002) Dynamic transperineal ultrasonography (DTP-US) in patients presenting with obstructed defecation. Techniques in coloproctology 6:141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thompson WG, Longsteth GF, Drossman DA et al (2000) Functional bowel disorders and functional abdominal pain. In: Drossman DA, Corazziari E, Talley NJ (eds) Functional gastrointestinal disorders. Degnon, Mclean, pp 351–432Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gonzalez-Argente FX, Jain A, Nogueras JJ et al (2001) Prevalence and severity of urinary incontinence and pelvic genital prolapse in females with anal incontinence or rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 44:920–926PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meschia M, Buonaguidi A, Pifarotti P et al (2002) Prevalence of anal incontinence in women with symptoms of urinary incontinence and genital prolapse. Obstet Gynecol 4:719–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vierhout ME, Schreuder HW, Veen HF (1993) Severe slow transit constipation following radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 51:401–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kelly JL, O’Riordain DS, Jones E et al (1998) The effect of hysterectomy on ano-rectal physiology. Int J Colorect Dis 13:116–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paraiso MF, Weber AM, Walters MD et al (2001) Anatomic and functional outcome after posterior colporrhaphy. J Pelvic Surg 7:335–339Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rotholtz NA, Efron JE, Weiss EG et al (2002) Anal manometric predictors of significant rectocele in constipated patients. Techn Coloproctol 6:73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zbar AP, Lienemann A, Fritsch H et al (2003) Rectocele: pathogenesis and surgical management. Int J Colorect Dis 18:369–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dietz HP, Steensma AB, Hastings R (2003) Three-dimensional ultrasound imaging of the pelvic floor: the effect of parturition on paravaginal support structures. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 21:589–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dietz HP (2004) Levator function before and after childbirth. Aust N Z Obstet Gynaecol 44:19–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dietz HP, Shek C, Clarke B (2005) Biometry of the pubovisceral muscle and levator hiatus by three-dimensional pelvic floor ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 25:580–585PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shorvon PJ, McHugh S, Diamant NE et al (1989) Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications. Gut 30:1737–1749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bremmer S (1988) Peritoneocele: a radiologic study with defaeco-peritoneography. Acta Radiol 413(Suppl):1–33Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    LeSaffer PA. Defecography — update 1994. The model of expulsion, digital subtraction cysto-colpo-enterodefecography and the perineal support device. Belgium, AZT Aalst Belgium Story-Scientia GhentGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Goei R, Kemerink G (1990) Radiation dose in defecography. Radiology 176:137–139PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A et al (1997) Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic floor descent. Eur Radiol 7:1309–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mortele KJ, Fairhurst J (2007) Dynamic MR defecography of the posterior compartment. Indications, techniques and MRI features. Eur J Radiol 61:462–472PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A, Reiser M (2000) Diagnosing enteroceles using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Dis Colon Rectum 43:205–213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kruger J, Heap X, Dietz HP (2007) OC259: a comparison of magnetic resonance imaging and 4D ultrasound in the assessment of the levator hiatus. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 30:A447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Beer-Gabel M, Teshler M, Schechtman E, Zbar AP (2004) Dynamic transperineal ultrasound vs. defecography in patients with evacuatory difficulty: a pilot study. Int J Colorect Dis 19:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nicholls MJ, Dunham R, O’Herlihy S et al (2006) Measurement of the anal cushions by transvaginal ultrasonography. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1410–1413PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zbar AP, Beer-Gabel M (2006) Clinical dynamic transperineal ultrasonography in proctologic practice: the case for its use in patients presenting with evacuatory difficulty. In: Romano G, di Falco G (eds) Benign anorectal diseases, Springer, Milan, pp 17–27Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dietz HP, Wilson PD (1999) The influence of bladder volume on the position and mobility of the urethrovesical junction. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 10:3–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aigner F, Zbar AP, Ludwikowski B et al (2004) The rectogenital septum: morphology, function and clinical relevance. Dis Colon Rectum 47:131–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jorge JM, Ger GC, Gonzales I, Wexner SD (1994) Patient position during cinedefecography: influence on perineal descent and other measurements. Dis Colon Rectum 37:927–931PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dietz HP, Clarke B (2001) The influence of posture on perineal ultrasound imaging parameters. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 12:104–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Schoenenberger AW, Debatin JF, Guldenschuh I et al (1998) Dynamic MR defecography with a superconducting MR system. Radiology 206:641–646PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Piloni V, Spazzafumo L (2005) Evacuation sonography. Techn Coloproctol 9:119–125; comment 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Felt-Bersma RJ, Luth WJ, Janssen JJ, Meuwissen SG (1990) Defecography in patients with anorectal disorders: Which findings are clinically relevant? Dis Colon Rectum 33:277–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between the two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD (1997) Dynamic cystoproctography of female pelvic floor defects and their inter-relationships. AJR Am J Roentgenol 369:769–774Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Backer MH (1992) Success with sacrospinous suspension of the prolapsed vaginal vault. Surg Gynecol Obstet 175:419–420PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    van Dam JH, Hop WC, Schouten WR (2000) Analysis of patients with poor outcome after rectocele repair. Dis Colon Rectum 43:1556–1560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Beck DE (2005) Medicolegal aspects of coloproctological practice. In: Wexner SD, Zbar AP, Pescatori M (eds) Complex anorectal disorders: investigation and management. Springer, London, pp 767–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Zbar AP (2006) Static and dynamic transperineal sonography in benign proctology. In: Pescatori M, Bartram CI, Zbar AP (eds) Atlas of clinical endosonography: 2D and 3D anal, vaginal and dynamic perineal ultrasonography of benign anorectal diseases. Springer, London, pp 84–112Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Zbar AP, Oyetunji RO, Gill R (2006) Transperineal versus hydrogen peroxide-enhanced endoanal ultrasonography in never operated and recurrent cryptogenic fistula-in-ano: a pilot study. Tech Coloproctol 10:297–302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Pucciani F, Rottoli ML, Bologna A et al (1998) Pelvic floor dyssynergia and bimodal rehabilitation: results of combined pelviperineal kinesitherapy and biofeedback training. Int J Colorect Dis 13:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brusciano L, Limongelli P, del Genio G et al (2007) Useful parameters helping proctologists to identify patients with defecatory disorders that may be treated with pelvic floor rehabilitation. Techn Coloproctol 11:45–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kelvin FM, Maglinte D, Hale DS, Benson JT (2000) Female organ prolapse: a comparison of triphasic MR imaging and triphasic fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:81–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    McKee RF, McEnroe L, Anderson JH, Finlay IG (1999) Identification of patients likely to benefit from biofeedback for outlet obstruction constipation. Br J Surg 86:355–359PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Zbar AP (2005) The role of functional evaluation before anorectal surgery. Società Italiana di Chirurgia ColoRettale (SICCR) 9:74–83. www.siccr.org. Cited 23 Mar 2008Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ayabaca SM, Zbar AP, Pescatori M (2002) Anal continence after rectocele repair. Dis Colon Rectum 45:63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ting KH, Mangel E, Eibl-Eibesfeldt B, Muller-Lissner SA (1992) Is the volume retained after defecation a valuable parameter at defecography? Dis Colon Rectum 35:762–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Halligan S, Bartram CI (1995) Is barium trapping in rectoceles significant? Dis Colon Rectum 38:764–768PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Heslop JH (1987) Piles and rectoceles. Aust N Z J Surg 57:935–938PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Karlbom U, Graf W, Nilsson S, Pahlman L (1996) Does surgical repair of a rectocele improve rectal emptying? Dis Colon Rectum 39:1296–1302PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Kahn MA, Stanton SL (1998) Techniques of rectocele repair and their effects on bowel function. Int Urogynecol J 9:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Cruiskshank SH (1991) Sacrospinous fixation — should this be performed at the time of vaginal hysterectomy? Am J Obstet Gynecol 164:1072–1076Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    McCall ML (1997) Posterior culdoplasty: surgical correction of enterocele during vaginal hysterectomy. A preliminary report. Obstet Gynecol 10:596–602Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pescatori M, Boffi F, Russo A, Zbar AP (2005) Complications and recurrence after excision of rectal internal mucosal prolapse for obstructed defecation. Int J Colorectal Dis 7:107–108Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Saclarides TJ, Brubaker L (2005) Evacuatory dysfunction following gynecologic surgery. In: Wexner SD, Zbar AP, Pescatori, M (eds) Complex anorectal disorders: investigation and management. Springer, London, pp 532–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Pescatori M, Quandamcarlo C (1999) A new grading of rectal internal mucosal prolapse and its correlation with diagnosis and treatment. Int J Colorect Dis 14:245–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bo K et al (1996) The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 175:10–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kapoor DS, Davila GW, Rosenthal RJ, Ghoneim GM (2004) Pelvic floor dysfunction in morbidly obese women: pilot study. Obes Res 12:1104–1107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Brusciano L, Limongelli P, Pescatori M et al (2007) Ultrasonographic patterns in patients with obstructed defecation. Int J Colorect Dis 22:969–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew P. Zbar
  • Marc Beer-Gabel
    • 1
  1. 1.Pelvic Floor Unit Chaim Sheba Tel-HashomerMedical CenterTel-AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations