Prospective Multicenter Trial Comparing Echodefecography With Defecography in the Assessment of Anorectal Dysfunction in Patients With Obstructed Defecation

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
48
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2011
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI
Indexadores
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autores
REGADAS, F. Sergio P.
HAAS, Eric M.
ABBAS, Maher A.
SANDS, Dana
WEXNER, Steven D.
MELO-AMARAL, Ingrid
SARDINAS, Carlos
LIMA, Doryane M.
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, v.54, n.6, p.686-692, 2011
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
BACKGROUND: Defecography is the gold standard for assessing functional anorectal disorders but is limited by the need for a specific radiologic environment, exposure of patients to radiation, and inability to show all anatomic structures involved in defecation. Echodefecography is a 3-dimensional dynamic ultrasound technique developed to overcome these limitations. OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to validate the effectiveness of echodefecography compared with defecography in the assessment of anorectal dysfunctions related to obstructed defecation. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective observational study. PATIENTS: Women with symptoms of obstructed defecation. SETTING: Six centers for colorectal surgery (3 in Brazil, 1 in Texas, 1 in Florida, and 1 in Venezuela). INTERVENTIONS: Defecography was performed after inserting 150 mL of barium paste in the rectum. Echodefecography was performed with a 2050 endoprobe through 3 automatic scans. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The kappa statistic was used to assess agreement between echodefecography and defecography in the evaluation of rectocele, intussusception, anismus, and grade III enterocele. RESULTS: Eighty-six women were evaluated: median Wexner constipation score, 13.4 (range, 6-23); median age, 53.4 (range, 26-77) years. Rectocele was identified with substantial agreement between the 2 methods (defecography, 80 patients; echodefecography, 76 patients; kappa = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.48-0.73). The 2 techniques demonstrated identical findings in 6 patients without rectocele, and in 9 patients with grade I, 29 with grade II, and 19 patients with grade III rectoceles. Defecography identified rectal intussusception in 42 patients, with echodefecography identifying 37 of these cases, plus 4 additional cases, yielding substantial agreement (kappa = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.57-1.0). Intussusception was associated with rectocele in 28 patients for both methods (kappa = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.41-0.83). There was substantial agreement for anismus (kappa = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.40-0.81) and for rectocele combined with anismus (kappa = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.40-0.82). Agreement for grade III enterocele was classified as almost perfect (kappa = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.66-1.0). LIMITATIONS: Echodefecography had limited use in identification of grade I and II enteroceles because of the type of probe used. CONCLUSIONS: Echodefecography may be used to assess patients with obstructed defecation, as it is able to detect the same anorectal dysfunctions found by defecography. It is minimally invasive and well tolerated, avoids exposure to radiation, and clearly demonstrates all the anatomic structures involved in defecation.
Palavras-chave
Ultrasonography, Defecography, Obstructed defecation, Rectocele, Anismus, Rectal intussusception
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/23013
Referências
  1. MELLGREN A, 1994, DIS COLON RECTUM, V37, P1133, DOI 10.1007/BF02049817
  2. Kelvin FM, 1999, AM J ROENTGENOL, V173, P31
  3. Murad-Regadas SM, 2007, COLORECTAL DIS, V9, P159, DOI 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2006.01157.x
  4. Agachan F, 1996, DIS COLON RECTUM, V39, P681, DOI 10.1007/BF02056950
  5. Pescatori M, 1999, INT J COLORECTAL DIS, V14, P245, DOI 10.1007/s003840050218
  6. SIPROUDHIS L, 1993, DIS COLON RECTUM, V36, P1030, DOI 10.1007/BF02047295
  7. FELTBERSMA RJF, 1990, DIS COLON RECTUM, V33, P277, DOI 10.1007/BF02055468
  8. Dietz HP, 2005, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V26, P73, DOI 10.1002/uog.1930
  9. Murad-Regadas SM, 2008, SURG ENDOSC, V22, P974, DOI 10.1007/s00464-007-9532-1
  10. Dietz HP, 2007, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V29, P688, DOI 10.1002/uog.4024
  11. Perniola G, 2008, ULTRASOUND OBST GYN, V31, P567, DOI 10.1002/uog.5337
  12. Beer-Gabel M, 2002, DIS COLON RECTUM, V45, P239, DOI 10.1007/s10350-004-6155-7
  13. Brusciano L, 2007, INT J COLORECTAL DIS, V22, P969, DOI 10.1007/s00384-006-0250-2
  14. Barthet M, 2000, ENDOSCOPY, V32, P300, DOI 10.1055/s-2000-7385
  15. Beer-Gabel M, 2004, INT J COLORECTAL DIS, V19, P60, DOI 10.1007/s00384-003-0508-x
  16. Chen H H, 2001, Tech Coloproctol, V5, P157, DOI 10.1007/s101510100018
  17. Fleiss J. c., 1981, STAT METHODS RATES P
  18. JOHANSSON C, 1992, DIS COLON RECTUM, V35, P503, DOI 10.1007/BF02049410
  19. Karlbom U, 1999, RADIOLOGY, V210, P103
  20. MAHIEU P, 1984, GASTROINTEST RADIOL, V9, P253, DOI 10.1007/BF01887846
  21. Marti, 1999, Colorectal Dis, V1, P324, DOI 10.1046/j.1463-1318.1999.00075.x
  22. Siegel S., 1988, NONPARAMETRIC STAT B

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MGT
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC