Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Anatomic Defects in Fecal Incontinence

  • Jaap Stoker
  • Andrew P. Zbar


Endoanal probe technology provides high-resolution soft-tissue imaging for periluminal anal and rectal disease, most notably in complex perirectal sepsis and in patients presenting with fecal incontinence and sphincter damage. The trend is a movement away from direct sphincter repair toward sacral neuromodulation in external anal sphincter (EAS) injury. However, endoanal magnetic resonance imaging (EAMRI) has shown clear accuracy in the delineation of both EAS defects suitable for surgical treatment and in the definition of internal anal sphincter (IAS) damage potentially suitable for bioimplant deployment. Moreover, endoanal MR images have shown a correlation with histopathologically defined sphincter atrophy, which in turn has been predictive of relatively poor postsphincteroplasty outcomes. The role of EAMRI in the hierarchy of imaging modalities for use in an incontinence algorithm is somewhat unclear in the absence of comparative randomized clinical trials. However, it has a definitive place in defining sphincter atrophy in equivocal cases that are perhaps best treated non-operatively or initially by temporary neuromodulatory stimulation.


Fecal Incontinence Anal Sphincter External Anal Sphincter Internal Anal Sphincter Sphincter Repair 
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.
    Zbar AP, Armitage NC (2006) Complex perirectal sepsis: clinical classification and imaging. Tech Coloproctol 10:83–93PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stoker J, Hussain SM, Lameris JS (1996) Endoanal magnetic resonance imaging versus endoanal sonography. Radiol Med (Torino) 6:738–741Google 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, Williams AB, Halligan S et al (2000) Prospective assessment of accuracy of endoanal MR imaging and endosonography in patients with fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:741–745PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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
  6. 6.
    Dobben AC, Terra MP, Slors JFM et al (2007) External anal sphincter defects in patients with fecal incontinence. Comparison of endoanal MR imaging and endoanal US. Radiology 242:463–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deen KI, Kumar D, Williams JG et al (1993) Anal sphincter defects: correlation between endoanal ultrasound and surgery. Ann Surg 218:201–205PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    deSouza NM, Hall AS, Puni R et al (1996) High resolution magnetic resonance imaging on the anal sphincter using a dedicated endoanal coil: comparison of magnetic resonance imaging with surgical findings. Dis Colon Rectum 39:926–934PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Myenberger C, Bertschinger P, Zala GF, Buchmann P (1996) Anal sphincter defects in fecal incontinence: correlation between endosonography and surgery. Endoscopy 28:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    deSouza NM, Puni FR, Zbar A et al (1996) MR imaging of the anal sphincter in multiparous women using an endoanal coil: correlation with in vitro anatomy and appearances in fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 167:1465–1471PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beets-Tan RG, Beets GL, van der Hoop AG et al (1999) High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of the anorectal region without an endocoil. Abdom Imaging 24:576–581PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morren GL, Beets-Tan RG, van Engelshoven JM (2001) Anatomy of the anal canal and perianal structures as defined by phased-array magnetic resonance imaging. Br J Surg 88:1506–1512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beets-Tan RG, Morren GL, Beets GL et al (2001) Measurement of anal sphincter muscles: endoanal US, endoanal MR imaging, or phased-array MR imaging? A study with healthy volunteers. Radiology 220:81–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Terra MP, Beets-Tan RGH, van der Hulst VPM et al (2005) Anal sphincter defects in patients with fecal incontinence: endoanal versus external phased array MR imaging. Radiology 236:888–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jacobs PP, Scheuer MM, Kuijpers JH, Vingerhoets MH (1990) Obstetric fecal incontinence: role of pelvic floor denervation and results of delayed sphincter repair. Dis Colon Rectum 33:494–497PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gilliland R, Altomare DF, Moreira H Jr., Oliveira L, Gilliland JE, Wexner SD (1998) Pudendal neuropathy is predictive of failure following overlapping anterior sphincteroplasty. Dis Colon Rectum 41:1516–1522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shu-Hung Chen A, Luchtefeld MA, Senagore AJ, MacKeigan JM, Hoyt C (1998) Pudendal nerve latency — does it predict outcome of anal sphincter repair? Dis Colon Rectum 41:1005–1009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Briel JW, Stoker J, Rociu E, Lameris JS, Hop WJC, Schouten WR. External anal sphincter atrophy on endoanal magnetic resonance imaging adversely affects continence after sphincteroplasty (1999) Br J Surg 86:1322–1327PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cazemier M, Terra MP, Stoker J et al (2006) Atrophy and defects detection of the external anal sphincter: comparison between three-dimensional anal endosonography and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging. Dis Colon Rectum 49:20–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Terra MP, Deutekom M, Beets-Tan RG et al (2006) Relationship between external anal sphincter atrophy at endoanal magnetic resonance imaging and clinical, functional, and anatomic characteristics in patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 49:668–678PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    West RL, Dwarkasing S, Briel JW et al (2005)Can three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography detect external anal sphincter atrophy? A comparison with endoanal magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Colorectal Dis 20:328–333PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Briel JW, Zimmerman DD, Stoker J et al (2000) Relationship between sphincter morphology on endoanal MRI and histopathological aspects of the external anal sphincter. Int J Colorectal Dis 15:87–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    deSouza NM, Puni R, Gilderdale DJ, Bydder GM (1995) Magnetic resonance imaging of the anal sphincter using an internal coil. Mag Reson Q 11:45–56Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stoker J, Hussain SM, van Kempen D et al (1996) Endoanal coil in MR imaging of anal fistulas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:360–362PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zbar AP, deSouza NM (2001) The anal sphincter. In: deSouza NM (ed). Endocavitary MRI of the pelvis. Harwood Academic, London, pp 91–109Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stoker J, Rociu E, Zwamborn AW et al (1999) Endoluminal MR imaging of the rectum and anus: technique, applications, and pitfalls. RadioGraphics 19:383–398PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deutekom M, Terra MP, Dijkgraaf MG et al (2006) Patients’ perception of tests in the assessment of faecal incontinence. Br J Radiol 79:94–100PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fletcher JG, Busse RF, Riederer SJ et al (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging of anatomic and dynamic defects of the pelvic floor in defecatory disorders. Am J Gastroenterol 98:399–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stoker J (2003) The anatomy of the pelvic floor and sphincters. In: Bartram CI, DeLancey JO, Halligan S et al (eds) Imaging pelvic floor disorders. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lunniss PJ, Phillips RKS (1992) Anatomy and function of the anal longitudinal muscle. Br J Surg 79:882–884PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fucini C, Elbetti C, Messerini L (1999) Anatomical plane of separation between the external anal sphincter and puborectalis muscle: clinical implications. Dis Colon Rectum 42:374–379PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rociu E, Stoker J, Eijkemans MJC, Laméris JS (2000) Normal anal sphincter anatomy and age-and sex-related variations at high-spatial-resolution endoanal MR imaging. Radiology 217:395–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sultan AH, Kamm M A, Hudson CN et al (1994) Endosonography of the anal sphincters: normal anatomy and comparison with manometry. Clin Radiol 49:368–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Williams AB, Bartram CI, Halligan S et al (2001) Multiplanar anal endosonography: normal anal canal anatomy. Colorectal Dis 3:169–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Burnett SJ, Bartram CI (1991) Endosonographic variations in the normal internal anal sphincter. Int J Colorect Dis 6:2–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bollard RC, Gardiner A, Lindow S et al (2002) Normal female anal sphincter: difficulties in interpretation explained. Dis Colon Rectum 45:171–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zbar AP, Beer-Gabel M, Chiappa AC, Aslam M (2001) Fecal incontinence after minor anorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1610–1623PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Tjandra JJ, Milsom JW, Schroeder T, Fazio VW (1993) Endoluminal ultrasound is preferable to electromyography in mapping anal sphincteric defects. Dis Colon Rectum 36:689–692PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Enck P, Heyer T, Gantke B et al (1997) How reproducible are measures of the anal sphincter muscle diameter by endoanal ultrasound? Am J Gastroenterol 92:293–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rociu E, Stoker J, Zwamborn AW, Laméris JS (1999) Endoanal MR imaging of the anal sphincter in fecal incontinence. RadioGraphics 19:S171–S177PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Terra MP, Stoker J (2006) The current role of imaging techniques in fecal incontinence. Eur Radiol 16:1727–1736PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Terra MP, Beets-Tan RG, van der Hulst VPM et al (2006) MR imaging in evaluating atrophy of the external anal sphincter in patients with fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:991–999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Williams AB, Bartram CI, Modhwadia D et al (2001)Endocoil magnetic resonance imaging quantification of external anal sphincter atrophy. Br J Surg 88:853–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Williams AB, Malouf AJ, Bartram CI et al (2001) Assessment of external anal sphincter morphology in id-iopathic fecal incontinence with endocoil magnetic resonance imaging. Dig Dis Sci 46:1466–1471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA, Bartram CI (1997) Primary degeneration of the internal anal sphincter as a cause of passive faecal incontinence. Lancet 349(9052):612–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Daniel F, De Parades V, Cellier C (2005) Abnormal appearance of the internal anal sphincter at ultrasound: a specific feature of progressive systemic sclerosis? Gastroenterol Clin Biol 29:597–5999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rao SS (2004) Diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. American College of Gastroenterology Practice Parameters Committee. Am J Gastroenterol 99:1585–1604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Altman DG (1999) Practical statistics for medical research. CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Baig MK, Wexner SD (2000). Factors predictive of outcome after surgery for faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 87:1316–1320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Starck M, Bohe M, Valentin L (2006) The extent of endosonographic anal sphincter defects after primary repair of obstetric sphincter tears increases over time and is related to anal incontinence. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 27:188–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dobben AC, Terra MP, Deutekom M et al (2007) The role of endoluminal imaging in clinical outcome of overlapping anterior anal sphincter repair in patients with fecal incontinence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:W70–W77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Saranovic D, Barisic G, Krivokapic Z et al (2007). Endoanal ultrasound evaluation of anorectal diseases and disorders: technique, indications, results and limitations. Eur J Radiol 61:480–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hill K, Fanning S, Fennerty MB, Faigel DO (2006) Endoanal ultrasound compared to anorectal manometry for the evaluation of fecal incontinence: a study of the effect these tests have on clinical outcome. Dig Dis Sci 51:235–240PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Evans C, Davis K, Kumar D (2006) Overlapping anal sphincter repair and anterior levatorplasty: effect of patient’s age and duration of follow-up. Int J Colorectal Dis 21:795–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    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
  57. 57.
    Tan IL, Stoker J, Zwamborn AW et al (1998) Female pelvic floor: endovaginal MR imaging of normal anatomy. Radiology 206:777–783PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hoeffel C, Arrive L, Mourra N et al (2006) Anatomic and pathologic findings at external phased-array pelvic MR imaging after surgery for anorectal disease. RadioGraphics 26:1391–1407PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jaap Stoker
    • 1
  • Andrew P. Zbar
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations