Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Defecography

  • Alice Brandão


Defecography by magnetic resonance imaging is an accurate method for evaluating morphology and function of the anorectal and pelvic muscles and organs. The dynamics of the pelvic floor may be evaluated in multiple compartments in high-resolution images and video mode, and the diseases affecting the evacuation mechanism may be identified.


Pelvic Floor Anal Canal Rectal Wall Valsalva Maneuver Dynamic Magnetic Resonance 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Shafik A (2001) Magnetic pudendal neurostimulation: a novel method for measuring pudendal nerve terminal motor latency. Clin Neurophysiol 112:1049–1052PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kumar S, Rao SSC (2003) Diagnostic test in fecal incontinence. Current Gastroenterol Rep 5:406–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rociu E, Stoker J, Eijkemans MJ et al (1999) Fecal incontinence: endoanal US versus endoanal MR imaging. Radiology 212:453–458PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Malouf AJ, Halligan S, Williams AB et al (2001) Prospective assessment of interobserver agreement for endoanal MRI in fecal incontinence. Abdom Imaging 26:76–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hetzer F, Andreisek G, Tsagari C et al (2006) MR defecography in patients with fecal incontinence: imaging findings and their effect on surgical management. Radiology 240:449–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bertschinger KM, Hetzer FH, Roos JE et al (2002) Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor performed with patent sitting in an open-magnet unit versus with patient supine in a closed-magnet unit. Radiology 223:501–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A et al (1997) Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic floor descent. Eur Radiol 7:1309–1317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bertschinger KM, Hetzer FH, Roos JE, Hilfiker PR (2002) Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor performed with patient sitting in an open-magnet unit versus with patient supine in a closed-magnet unit. Radiology 223:501–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bezerra MRL, Soares FFA, Fainthch S et al (2001) Identificação das estruturas músculo-ligamentares do assoalho pélvico feminino na ressonância magnética. Riod Bras 34(6):312–319Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jaap S, Halligan S, Bartram CI (2001) Pelvic floor imaging. Radiology 218:621–641Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fielding RF, Dumanli H, Schreyer AG et al (2000) MR-based three-dimensional modeling of the normal pelvic floor in women. Quantification of muscle mass. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:657–660PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodrigues, CJ, Fagundes Neto HO, Lucon M et al (2001) Alterações no sistema de fibras elásticas da fáscia endopélvica de paciente jovem com prolapso uterino. Rev Bras Ginec Obstet 23(1):234–239Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fielding JR (2002) Practical MR imaging of female pelvic floor weakness. Radiographics 22:295–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Underweger M, Marincek B, Gottstein-Aalame N (1998) Ultrafast MR imaging of the pelvic floor. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176:959–963Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Comiter CV, Vasavada SP, Barbaric ZL et al (1999) Grading pelvic prolapse and pelvic floor relaxation using dynamic magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 54:454–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kelvin FM, Maglinte DD, Hale DS, Benson JT (2000) Female pelvic organ prolapse: a comparison of triphasic dynamic MR imaging and triphasic fluoroscopic cystocolpoproctography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:81–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang A, Mostwin JL, Rosenshein NB, Zerhouni EA (1991) Pelvic floor descend in women: dynamic evaluation with fast MR imaging and cinematic display. Radiology 179:25–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ross JE, Weishaupt D, Wildermuth S et al (2002) Experience of 4 years with open MR defecography: pictorial review of anorectal anatomy and disease. Radiographics 22:817–832Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stoker J, Rociu E, Zwarborn AW et al (1999) JS. Endoluminal MR imaging of the rectum and anus: technique, applications, and pitfalls. RadioGraphics 19:383–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferrante SL, Perry RE, Schreiman JS et al (1991) The reproducibility of measuring the anorectal angle in defecography. Dis Colon Rectum 34:51–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karasick S, Karasick D, Karasick SR (1993) Functional disorders of the anus and rectum: findings on defecography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 160:777–782PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yoshioka K, Matsui Y, Yamada O et al (1991) Physiologic and anatomic assessment of patients with rectocele. Dis Colon Rectum 34:704–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    ltringer WE, Saclarides TJ, Dominguez JM et al (1995) Four contrast defecography: pelvic “floor-oscopy”. Dis Colon Rectum 38:969–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shorvon PJ, McHugh S, Diamant NE et al (1989) Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications. Gut 30:1737–1749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alice Brandão
    • 1
  1. 1.Clínica RadiológicaLuiz Felippe MattosoRio de Janeiro, RJBrazil

Personalised recommendations