AJR Women's Imaging Online
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frudinger, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kamm, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frudinger, A.
Right arrow Articles by Kamm, M. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol 168, 1435-1438, Copyright © 1997 by American Roentgen Ray Society

ARTICLES

Transvaginal versus anal endosonography for detecting damage to the anal sphincter

A Frudinger, CI Bartram and MA Kamm
Department of Physiology, St. Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, Harrow, London, United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: We undertook this study to establish the accuracy of transvaginal endosonography for detecting damage to the anal sphincter. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Anal endosonography was performed in 47 parous patients and one nulliparous patient using a sonographic scanner, an 1850 endoprobe, and a 10-MHz transducer protected by a water-filled hard plastic cone. This procedure was followed by transvaginal sonography using the same system but with a water-filled balloon in 43 and a dedicated vaginal probe Type 8551 of 10-MHz frequency in five. Axial images were obtained as low in the perineum as possible. The transvaginal images were reviewed with the observer unaware of the findings from anal endosonography and were then compared with the anal endosonograms. RESULTS: The transvaginal images were inadequate for review in three patients. In the remaining 45 patients, anal endosonography showed internal sphincter defects in 18 and external sphincter tears in 21. Transvaginal endosonography showed eight internal and 10 external sphincter defects only, giving a sensitivity of 44% and a specificity of 96% for the detection of internal sphincter defects and a sensitivity of 48% and a specificity of 88% for external sphincter tears. CONCLUSION: Transvaginal examination is not accurate for assessing the anal sphincter because of the anatomic limitations this approach imposes on axial imaging of the anal canal.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
F. Berton, G. Gola, and S. R. Wilson
Sonography of Benign Conditions of the Anal Canal: An Update
Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2007; 189(4): 765 - 773.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Diagnostic Medical SonographyHome page
N. A. Yassa and K. P. Lee
Biplanar Endosonographic Imeaginlg of the Anal Sphincters
Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, November 1, 1998; 14(6): 263 - 266.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1997 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.