A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Prospective Comparison between two different magnetic resonance defecography techniques for evaluating pelvic floor disorders: air-balloon versus gel for rectal filling. | LitMetric

Purpose: to prospectively compare two rectal filling techniques for dynamic MRI of pelvic floor disorders (PFD).

Methods And Materials: Twenty-six patients with PFD underwent the two techniques during the same procedure, one based on rectal placement of a balloon-catheter filled with saline and air insufflation (air-balloon technique or AB); another based on rectal filling with 180 cc of gel (gel-filling technique or GF). The examinations were compared for assessment and staging of PFD, including rectal-descent, rectocele, cystocele, colpocele, enterocele, rectal invagination. Surgery and clinical examinations were the gold standard.

Results: AB showed sensitivity of 96 % for rectal descent, 100 % for both rectocele and colpocele, 86 % for rectal invagination and 100 % for enterocele; understaged 11 % of rectal descents and 19 % of rectoceles. GF showed sensitivity of 100 % for rectal descent, 91 % for rectocele, 83 % for colpocele, 100 % for rectal invagination and 73 % for enterocele; understaged 3.8 % of rectal descent and 11.5 % of rectoceles. Both techniques showed 100 % of specificity. Agreement between air-balloon and gel filling was 84 % for rectal descent, 69 % for rectocele, 88 % for rectal invagination, 84 % for enterocele, 88 % for cystocele and 92 % for colpocele.

Conclusion: Both techniques allowed a satisfactory evaluation of PFD. The gel filling was superior for rectal invagination, the air-balloon for rectocele and anterior/middle compartment disorders.

Key Points: • A standardized MRI technique for assessing pelvic floor disorders is not yet established. • This study compares two MRI techniques based on different rectal filling: air-balloon versus gel. • Both MRI techniques proved to be valuable in assessing PFD, with good agreement. • Air-balloon technique is more hygienic and better tolerated than the gel-filling technique. • Gel was superior for rectal invagination, air-balloon for rectocele and uro-genital prolapses.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4016-5DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rectal invagination
24
rectal
16
rectal filling
16
rectal descent
16
pelvic floor
12
floor disorders
12
based rectal
12
air-balloon versus
8
versus gel
8
air-balloon technique
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!