Magnetic Resonance Rectal Enema Versus Computed Tomographic Colonography in the Diagnosis of Rectosigmoid Endometriosis.

OBJECTIVES: Rectosigmoid involvement by endometriosis causes intestinal symptoms such as constipation, diarrhea, and dyschezia. A precise diagnosis about the presence, location, and extent of bowel implants is required to plan the most appropriate treatment. The aim of the study was to compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance with distension of the rectosigmoid (MR-e) with computed colonography (CTC) for diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis. METHODS: This study was based on the retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database of patients with suspicion of rectosigmoid endometriosis who underwent both MR-e and CTC, and subsequently were treated by laparoscopy. The findings of imaging techniques were compared with surgical and histological results. RESULTS: Of 90 women included in the study, 44 (48.9%) had rectosigmoid nodules and underwent bowel surgery. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis were 88.6%, 93.5%, 92.9%, 89.6%, and 91.1% for CTC, and 93.2%, 97.9%, 97.6%, 93.8%, and 95.6% for MR-e. There was no significant difference in the accuracy of both radiologic examinations for diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis (P = 0.344). However, MR-e was more accurate than CTC in estimating the largest diameter of the main rectosigmoid nodule (P < 0.001). The pain perceived by the patients was significantly lower during MR-e than during CTC (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: MR-e and CTC have similar diagnostic performance for the diagnosis of rectosigmoid involvement of endometriosis. However, MR-e is more accurate in the estimation of the largest diameter of main rectosigmoid nodule and more tolerated than CTC.

Does Bowel Preparation Improve the Performance of Rectal Water Contrast Transvaginal Ultrasonography in Diagnosing Rectosigmoid Endometriosis?

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the study was to compare the performance of the rectal water transvaginal ultrasonography (RWC-TVS) with and without bowel preparation (BP) in diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis. The secondary objectives were to compare the performance of the 2 exams in estimating infiltration of the mucosa, length of the largest rectosigmoid nodules, distance of the nodules from the anal verge, and presence of multifocal disease. METHODS: This prospective study included patients with pain symptoms and intestinal complaints suggestive of endometriosis. Patients underwent RWC-TVS with and without BP within an interval of 1 week to 2 months. Two independent and blinded gynecologists performed the exams. The results of the 2 exams were compared with surgical and histologic findings. RESULTS: A total of 155 patients were included in the study; 92 patients had rectosigmoid endometriosis. There was no significant difference in the performance of RWC-TVS with or without BP in diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis (P = .727). There was no significant difference in the performance of RWC-TVS with or without BP in diagnosing infiltration of the mucosa (P = .424) and multifocal disease (P = .688), in estimating the main diameter of the largest nodule (P = .644) and the distance between the more distal rectosigmoid nodule and the anal verge (P = .090). The patients similarly tolerated the 2 exams (P = .799). CONCLUSIONS: Bowel preparation does not improve the performance of RWC-TVS in diagnosing rectosigmoid endometriosis and in assessing the characteristics of these nodules.

Stapled transanal rectal resection for outlet obstruction syndrome: results and follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study was to assess safety, effectiveness, and long-term outcomes of stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for the cure of outlet obstruction syndrome (OOS). METHODS: Data were collected over a 3-year period (2004-2007), at the Department of Surgery of the University of Genoa, from 25 consecutive subjects (19 of them females) undergoing STARR because of OOS that had not responded to medical treatment,. RESULTS: Preoperatively, patients were submitted to clinical examination, defecography, colonoscopy, manometry, and recto-anal reflexes determination. All patients had mucosal prolapse, 15 rectal intussusception, 15 rectocele. Postoperatively no deaths were observed; one patient had a hemorrhage requiring reintervention. Mean time to resumption of normal activity was 8.5 +/- 4.5 days. Patients were followed for a mean of 24.7 +/- 10.9 months (range: 6-42 months). Late specific complications included 3 cases of urge to defecate, 8 of incontinence to flatus. Functional outcome was positive for 22 patients (excellent in 4 cases, good in 15, fairly good in 3). Six months postoperatively (25 s), patients had improvement of the mean Constipation Score (p = 0.0002), less pain during evacuation (p = 0.0003), and reduced use of digital assistance to defecate (p < 0.0001). Continence Grading Scale and enema use remained stable after intervention. Patients had increase in basal sphincter pressure (p = 0.0078) and maximal squeeze pressure (p = 0.0051). Recto-anal reflex study showed increase in abdominal pain threshold (p < 0.0001); anal sphincter relaxation threshold and desire to defecate threshold did not change. CONCLUSIONS: According to the present study, STARR seemed to be a safe and effective treatment for OOS associated with symptomatic rectocele and intussusception.