Two- and Three-dimensional Ultrasonography of Anatomic Defects in Fecal Incontinence
Here we discuss the role of endoanal ultrasound (US) scanning in fecal incontinence. Two-dimensional (2-D) US demonstrates precisely the type and extent of muscle injuries in relation to the anal circumference, whereas 3-D scanning shows it in relation to anal canal length. Interpretation of 3-D imaging is simpler, as muscle length can also be measured longitudinally. The exact identification of the injured muscles is important in deciding upon the best therapeutic option. Anal US can also be useful in evaluating the results of surgical repair, identifying adjacent or overlapping muscles, and documenting persisting muscle injury.
KeywordsFecal Incontinence Muscle Injury External Anal Sphincter Internal Anal Sphincter Sphincter Injury
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.
Gold DM, Bartram CI, Halligan S et al (1999) Three-dimensional endoanal sonography in assessing anal canal injury. Br J Surg 86:365–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regadas SMM, Regadas FSP, Rodrigues LV et al (2005) Importância do ultra-som tridimensional na avaliação anorretal. Arq Gastroenterol 42:226–232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
West RL, Dwarkasing S, Briel JW et al (2005) Can three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography detect external and sphincter atrophy? A comparison with endoanal magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Colorectal Dis 20(4):328–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zetterstrom JP, Mellgren A, Madoff RD et al (1994) Perineal body measurement improves evaluation of anterior sphincter lesions during endoanal ultrasonography. Dis Colon Rectum 41:705–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bollard RC, Gardiner A, Lindow S et al (2002) Normal female anal sphincter: difficulties in interpretation explained. Dis Colon Rectum 45:171–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regadas FSP, Murad-Regadas SM, Lima DRM et al (2007) Anal canal anatomy showed by three-dimensional anorectal ultrasonography. Surg Endoscopy 21(12):2207–2211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen MB, Gammelgaard L, Pedersen JF (1994) Endosonographic assessment of the anal sphincter after surgical reconstruction. Dis Colon Rectum 37:434–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savoye-Collet C, Savoye G, Koning E et al (1999) Anal endosonography after sphincter repair: specific patterns related to clinical outcome. Abdom Imaging 24:569–573PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ignacio EA, Hill MC (2003) Ultrasound of the acute female pelvis. Ultrasound Q 19(2):86–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Briel JW, Stoker J, Rociu E et al (1999) External anal sphincter atrophy on endoanal magnetic resonance imaging adversely affects continence after sphincteroplasty. Br J Surg 86:1322–1327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
© Springer-Verlag Italia 2008