AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Malouf, A. J.
Right arrow Articles by Kamm, M. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Malouf, A. J.
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?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
AJR 2000; 175:741-745
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Prospective Assessment of Accuracy of Endoanal MR Imaging and Endosonography in Patients with Fecal Incontinence

Andrew J. Malouf1,2, Andrew B. Williams1, Steve Halligan1, Clive I. Bartram1, Sukvinder Dhillon1 and Michael A. Kamm2

1 Intestinal Imaging Centre, St. Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex, HA1 3UJ, United Kingdom.
2 Sir Alan Parks Physiology Unit, St. Mark's Hospital, Northwick Park, London, HA1 3UJ, United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE. Endoanal MR imaging was prospectively compared with anal endosonography to determine any superiority in the characterization of sphincter morphology in fecal incontinence.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. Fifty-two consecutive patients with fecal incontinence were examined with anal endosonography and endoanal MR imaging after a detailed bowel history, clinical examination, and complete anorectal physiologic testing. External and internal anal sphincter integrity was noted on both endosonograms and MR images by two radiologists in consensus, who read individual scans in a random order to avoid recall bias. Imaging findings were subsequently compared, and arbitration of any disagreement between endosonography and MR imaging was made in consensus by a surgeon and a gastroenterologist who also had access to the patient's history, clinical examination, and anorectal physiologic testing results.

RESULTS. Complete agreement was found between anal endosonographic and MR imaging interpretations in 32 patients (62%): 10 with combined external and internal sphincter injuries, two with isolated internal sphincter injury, and 20 with intact sphincters. Of 20 patients in whom results of the scans were disparate, incorrect interpretation was found on endosonography in six patients, on MR imaging in 15. Overall, one error relating to the internal sphincter was made on endosonography versus 12 on MR imaging (p = 0.002), and five errors relating to the external sphincter were made on endosonography versus six on MR imaging (p = 1.0).

CONCLUSION. This study suggests that endoanal sonography and endoanal MR imaging are equivalent in diagnosing external anal sphincter injury, but MR imaging is inferior in diagnosing internal anal sphincter injury.


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
A. C. Dobben, R. J. F. Felt-Bersma, F. J. W. ten Kate, and J. Stoker
Cross-Sectional Imaging of the Anal Sphincter in Fecal Incontinence
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2008; 190(3): 671 - 682.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
A. C. Dobben, M. P. Terra, J. F. M. Slors, M. Deutekom, M. F. Gerhards, R. G. H. Beets-Tan, P. M. M. Bossuyt, and J. Stoker
External Anal Sphincter Defects in Patients with Fecal Incontinence: Comparison of Endoanal MR Imaging and Endoanal US
Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 463 - 471.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Ultrasound MedHome page
G. Engin
Endosonographic imaging of anorectal diseases.
J. Ultrasound Med., January 1, 2006; 25(1): 57 - 73.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
M. P. Terra, R. G. H. Beets-Tan, V. P. M. van Der Hulst, M. G. W. Dijkgraaf, P. M. M. Bossuyt, A. C. Dobben, C. G. M. I. Baeten, and J. Stoker
Anal Sphincter Defects in Patients with Fecal Incontinence: Endoanal versus External Phased-Array MR Imaging
Radiology, September 1, 2005; 236(3): 886 - 895.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
A F Christensen, B Nyhuus, M B Nielsen, and H Christensen
Three-dimensional anal endosonography may improve diagnostic confidence of detecting damage to the anal sphincter complex
Br. J. Radiol., April 1, 2005; 78(928): 308 - 311.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. Stoker, E. Rociu, W. R. Schouten, and J. S. Lameris
Anovaginal and Rectovaginal Fistulas: Endoluminal Sonography Versus Endoluminal MR Imaging
Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2002; 178(3): 737 - 741.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ImagingHome page
S Halligan
Introduction to functional pelvic floor imaging
Imaging, December 31, 2001; 13(6): 435 - 439.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ImagingHome page
J Stoker and E Rociu
Endoanal MRI in anal incontinence
Imaging, December 31, 2001; 13(6): 467 - 472.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
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
Copyright © 2000 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.