| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1
Intestinal Imaging Centre, Level 4V, St. Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park,
Watford Rd., Harrow, London, HA1 3UJ, United Kingdom.
2
Department of Radiology, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, Fulham Rd.,
London, SW10 9NH, United Kingdom.
OBJECTIVE. Dynamic MR imaging may be used as an alternative to dynamic cystoproctography for the evaluation of pelvic floor prolapse and configuration. MR criteria for normality are derived from proctographic studies because no large MR study of asymptomatic individuals has been performed. Our study aimed to define the normal range of dynamic pelvic MR appearances in a large group of asymptomatic individuals.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty healthy adult volunteers (25 men and 25 women; age range, 20-66 years; mean age, 34 years) were prospectively recruited and examined using dynamic MR imaging. All subjects were interviewed and established as healthy using a validated questionnaire. Axial, coronal, and sagittal MR imaging was performed at rest and during maximum pelvic strain using a static 1.0-T unit and a fast-field-echo sequence, providing 10 slices in 31 sec. Standardized measurements of pelvic configuration were taken, and rest and strain imaging were compared to determine the range of normal appearances.
RESULTS. Three women developed a cystocele during maximum pelvic strain, two of whom also showed grade 1 uterocervical prolapse, which was also seen in another woman. Three men showed posterior pelvic floor descent in excess of 3 cm during straining. No rectocele, enterocele, rectal prolapse, or perineal hernia was seen in any subject.
CONCLUSION. The normal range of pelvic organ descent in asymptomatic subjects seen on dynamic MR imaging included cystocele, uterocervical prolapse, and excessive anorectal junction descent. Although we encountered pelvic prolapse in seven volunteers, it was infrequent and low grade, suggesting that criteria for abnormality derived from proctography are generally applicable to MR imaging.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. C. Colaiacomo, G. Masselli, E. Polettini, S. Lanciotti, E. Casciani, L. Bertini, and G. Gualdi Dynamic MR Imaging of the Pelvic Floor: a Pictorial Review RadioGraphics, May 1, 2009; 29(3): e35 - e. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. F. El Sayed, S. El Mashed, A. Farag, M. M. Morsy, and M. S. Abdel Azim Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: Assessment with Combined Analysis of Static and Dynamic MR Imaging Findings Radiology, August 1, 2008; 248(2): 518 - 530. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. H. Hetzer, G. Andreisek, C. Tsagari, U. Sahrbacher, and D. Weishaupt MR Defecography in Patients with Fecal Incontinence: Imaging Findings and Their Effect on Surgical Management Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 449 - 457. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A E Bharucha, J G Fletcher, C M Harper, D Hough, J R Daube, C Stevens, B Seide, S J Riederer, and A R Zinsmeister Relationship between symptoms and disordered continence mechanisms in women with idiopathic faecal incontinence Gut, April 1, 2005; 54(4): 546 - 555. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S Halligan Dynamic pelvic MRI Imaging, December 31, 2001; 13(6): 458 - 461. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Unterweger, B. Marincek, N. Gottstein-Aalame, J. F. Debatin, B. Seifert, N. Ochsenbein-Imhof, D. Perucchini, and R. A. Kubik-Huch Ultrafast MR Imaging of the Pelvic Floor Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2001; 176(4): 959 - 963. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Stoker, S. Halligan, and C. I. Bartram Pelvic Floor Imaging Radiology, March 1, 2001; 218(3): 621 - 641. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
