The influence of defaecating proctograms on clinical decision-making in pelvic floor disorders.

AIM: Defaecating proctogram (DP) studies have become an integral part of the evaluation of patients with pelvic floor disorders. However, their impact on treatment decision-making remains unclear. The aim of this study was to assess the concordance of decision-making by colorectal surgeons and the role of the DP in this process. METHOD: Four colorectal surgeons were presented with online surveys containing the complete history, examination and investigations of 106 de-identified pelvic floor patients who had received one of three treatment options: physiotherapy only, anterior Delorme's procedure or anterior mesh rectopexy. The survey assessed the management decisions made by each of the surgeons for the three treatments both before and after the addition of the DP to the diagnostic work-up. RESULTS: After the addition of the DP results; treatment choice changed in 219 (52%) of 424 surgical decisions and interrater agreement improved significantly from κ = 0.26 to κ = 0.39. Three of the four surgeons reported a significant increase in confidence. Agreement with the actual treatments patients received increased from κ = 0.21 to κ = 0.28. Intra-anal rectal prolapse on DP was a significant predictor of a decision to perform anterior mesh rectopexy. CONCLUSION: The DP improves interclinician agreement in the management of pelvic floor disorders and enhances the confidence in treatment decisions. Intra-anal rectal prolapse was the most influential DP parameter in treatment decision-making.

Consensus Definitions and Interpretation Templates for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Defecatory Pelvic Floor Disorders: Proceedings of the Consensus Meeting of the Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium of the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, the Society of Abdominal Radiology, the International Continence Society, the American Urogynecologic Society, the International Urogynecological Association, and the Society of Gynecologic Surgeons.

The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium (PFDC) is a multidisciplinary organization of colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, urologists, gynecologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, physiotherapists, and other advanced care practitioners. Specialists from these fields are all dedicated to the diagnosis and management of patients with pelvic floor conditions, but they approach, evaluate, and treat such patients with their own unique perspectives given the differences in their respective training. The PFDC was formed to bridge gaps and enable collaboration between these specialties. The goal of the PFDC is to develop and evaluate educational programs, create clinical guidelines and algorithms, and promote high quality of care in this unique patient population. The recommendations included in this article represent the work of the PFDC Working Group on Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pelvic Floor Disorders (members listed alphabetically in Table 1). The objective was to generate inclusive, rather than prescriptive, guidance for all practitioners, irrespective of discipline, involved in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pelvic floor disorders.

Comparative study of magnetic resonance defaecography and evacuation proctography in the evaluation of obstructed defaecation.

AIM: Obstructed defaecation syndrome is a common condition of multifactorial aetiology and requires specialized evaluation. Accurate and reproducible pelvic floor imaging is imperative for multidisciplinary decision-making. Evacuation proctography (EP) and magnetic resonance defaecography (MRD) are the main imaging modalities used to assess dynamic pelvic floor function. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the findings and acceptability of MRD and EP in the same cohort of patients. METHOD: This was a prospective comparative study of MRD vs EP in 55 patients with obstructed defaecation syndrome in a single National Health Service Foundation Trust. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were recruited and underwent both EP and MRD. Detection rates for rectocoele were similar (82% vs 73%, P = 0.227), but EP revealed a significantly higher number of trapping rectocoeles compared to MRD (75% vs 31%, P < 0.001). EP detected more rectal intussusceptions than MRD (56% vs 35%, P = 0.023). MRD appeared to underestimate the size of the identified rectocoele, although it detected a significant number of anatomical abnormalities in the middle and anterior pelvic compartment not seen on EP (1.8% enterocoele, 9% peritoneocoele and 20% cystocoele). Patients achieved higher rates of expulsion of rectal contrast during EP compared to MRD, but this difference was not significant (76% vs 64% in MRD, P = 0.092). Of the two studies, patients preferred MRD. CONCLUSIONS: MRD provides a global assessment of pelvic floor function and anatomical abnormality. MRD is better tolerated by patients but it is not as sensitive as EP in detecting trapping rectocoeles and intussusceptions.

Rectal axis and enterocele on proctogram may predict laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy outcomes for rectal intussusception.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic ventral mesh rectopexy (LVMR) has become a well-established treatment for symptomatic high-grade internal rectal prolapse. The aim of this study was to identify proctographic criteria predictive of a successful outcome. METHODS: One hundred and twenty consecutive patients were evaluated from a prospectively maintained pelvic floor database. Pre- and post-operative functional results were assessed with the Wexner constipation score (WCS) and Fecal Incontinence Severity Index (FISI). Proctogram criteria were analyzed against functional results. These included grade of intussusception, presence of enterocele, rectocele, excessive perineal descent and the orientation of the rectal axis at rest (vertical vs. horizontal). RESULTS: Ninety-one patients completed both pre- and post-operative follow-up questionnaires. Median pre-operative WCS was 14 (range 10-17), and median FISI was 20 (range 0-61), with 28 patients (31%) having a FISI above 30. The presence of an enterocele was associated with more frequent complete resolution of obstructed defecation (70 vs. 52%, p = 0.02) and fecal incontinence symptoms (71 vs. 38%, p = 0.01) after LVMR. Patients with a more horizontal rectum at rest pre-operatively had significantly less resolution of symptoms post-operatively (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: These data show that proctographic findings can help predict functional outcomes after LVMR. Presence of an enterocele and a vertical axis of the rectum at rest may be associated with a better resolution of symptoms.