Defekografi
Özet
Pelvik taban disfonksiyonu, özellikle ileri yaş ve multiparite gibi faktörlerle tetiklenen, yaşam kalitesini ciddi oranda düşüren ve sıklıkla cerrahi müdahale gerektiren bir sağlık sorunudur. Teşhiste fiziksel muayenenin yetersiz kalması, radyolojik görüntüleme yöntemlerini, özellikle konvansiyonel defekografi ve dinamik MR defekografiyi kritik hale getirmektedir. Geleneksel floroskopi tabanlı yöntem referans standart kabul edilse de, dinamik MR defekografi; iyonize radyasyon içermemesi, yüksek yumuşak doku çözünürlüğü ve pelvik bölgeyi üç düzlemde detaylı görüntüleyebilmesi nedeniyle modern tıpta ön plana çıkmaktadır. İnceleme sırasında hastanın istirahat, kasma, ıkınma ve defekasyon fazlarındaki pelvik organ hareketleri; pubokoksigeal çizgi, anorektal açı ve levator hiatus gibi parametreler üzerinden titizlikle değerlendirilir. Bu yöntemle sistosel, uterovajinal prolapsus, enterosel ve rektosel gibi patolojiler kesin olarak teşhis edilerek cerrahi planlama optimize edilir. Sonuç olarak, pelvik taban bozukluklarının yönetiminde dinamik MRG, sağladığı morfolojik ve fonksiyonel verilerle konvansiyonel yöntemlere üstünlük sağlamakta ve nüks riskini azaltmak için eksiksiz bir anatomik haritalama sunmaktadır.
Pelvic floor dysfunction is a significant health issue, particularly triggered by factors such as advanced age and multiparity, which substantially reduces quality of life and frequently necessitates surgical intervention. Since physical examination is often insufficient for diagnosis, radiological imaging methods—specifically conventional defecography and dynamic MR defecography—become critical. Although the traditional fluoroscopy-based method is still considered the reference standard, dynamic MR defecography stands out in modern medicine due to its lack of ionizing radiation, high soft-tissue resolution, and ability to provide detailed multiplanar imaging of the pelvic region. During the examination, pelvic organ movements during rest, squeezing, straining, and defecation phases are meticulously evaluated through parameters such as the pubococcygeal line, anorectal angle, and levator hiatus. This method allows for the definitive diagnosis of pathologies like cystocele, uterovaginal prolapse, enterocele, and rectocele, thereby optimizing surgical planning. Consequently, dynamic MRI offers superiority over conventional methods in managing pelvic floor disorders by providing comprehensive morphological and functional data, ensuring a complete anatomical mapping to reduce the risk of recurrence.
Referanslar
Elneil S. Complex pelvic floor failure and associated problems. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2009;23(4):555–73.
Hallock JL and Handa VL. The epidemiology of pelvic floor dis- orders and childbirth: an update. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2016 March; 1-13.
Brandão AC, Ianez P. MR imaging of the pelvic flo- or: defecography. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2013; 21: 427-45.
García del Salto L, de Miguel Criado J, Aguilera del Hoyo LF et al; MR imaging–based assessment of the female pelvic floor. Radiographics. 2014;34(5);1417-39
Nygaard I, Barber MD, Burgio KL, et al.; Pelvic Floor Disor- ders Network. Prevalence of symptomatic pelvic floor disorders in US women. JAMA, 2008; 300(11): p.1311-1316.
Köhler K, Stelzner S, Hellmich G, et al. Results in the long-term course after sta- pledtransanal rectal resection (STARR). Langenbecks Arch Surg 2012;397:771—8.
Deval B, Poilpot S, Menu Y; Imaging pelvic floor prolapse. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 2003;32:22—9.
Faccioli N, Comai A, Mainardi P, et al; Defecography: a practical approach. Diagn Interv Radiol 2010;16:209—16.
Maglinte DD, Hale DS, Sandrasegaran K. Comparison between dynamic cystocolpoproctography and dynamic pelvic floor MRI: pros and cons: which is the ‘‘functional’’ examination for anorectal and pelvic floor dysfunction? Abdominal Imaging 2013;38:952—73.
Bartram CI, Turnbull GK, Lennard-Jones JE. Evacuation proctography: an inves- tigation of rectal expulsion in20 subjects without defecatory disturbance. Gastrointest Radiol 1988;13(1):72–80.
Nathan Y. Kim, David H. Kim, Perry J. Pickhardt, Evie H. Carchman;, Gastroenterol Clin N Am (2018) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gtc.2018.04.006
El Sayed RF, Alt CD, Maccioni Fet al;, Esur, Group EPFW (2017) Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction - joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR Pelvic Floor Working Group. Eur Radiol 27 (5):2067-2085. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00330016-4471-7
Pizzoferrato AC, Nyangoh Timoh K, Fritel X, et al; Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging and pelvic floor disorders: J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;181;259-266.
Solopova AE, Hetzer FH, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR defecog- raphy: prospective comparison of two rectal enema compositions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Feb;190(2):W118-124.
Haya N, Segev E, Younes G, Glodschmidt E; The effect of bladder fullness on evaluation of pelvic organ prolapse. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012;118:24-26.
Halil Özer, Ali Yusuf Öner , Pelvik Taban Görüntülemede Dinamik MRG , Trd Sem 2015; 3: 12-24 doi:10.5152/trs.2015.163
Farah H, Laurent N, Phalippou J, et al. Postoperative pelvic pain: an imaging approach. Diagn Interv Imaging 2015;96:1065—75.
Arif-Tiwari H, Twiss CO, Lin FC, et al; Improved detection of pelvic organ pro- lapse: Comparative utility of defecography phase sequence to nondefecography valsalva maneuvers in dynamic pelvic floor magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2019 Jul -Aug;48(4):342-347.
Francesca Maccioni and Celine D. Alt MRI of the Pelvic Floor and MR Defecography Diseases of the Abdomen and Pelvis 2018–2021, IDKD Springer Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75019-4_2
Bharucha AE, Wald A, Enck P, Rao S (2006) Functional Ano- rectal Disorders. Gastroenterology130(5):1510–1518. https://doi. org/10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.064
Lalwani N, Moshiri M, Lee JH, 2013, Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction. Radiol Clin North Am 51(6):1127–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rcl.2013.07.004
Bitti GT, Argiolas GM, Ballicu NP, et al. Pelvic floor failure: MR imaging evaluation of anatomic and functional abnormalities. Radiographics 2014;34:429—48.
Tunn R, DeLance J, Quint EE. Visibility of pelvic organ support system structures in magnetic reso- nance images without an endovajinal coil. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184: 1156-63.
Law YM, Fielding JR. MRI of pelvic floor dysfunction: review. AJR Americanjournal of roentgenology. 2008;191 (6 Suppl):S45-53.
Singh K, Jakab M, Reid WM et al; Three- dimensional magnetic resonance imaging assessment of levator ani morphologic features in different grades of prolapse. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(4):910–5.
Boyadzhyan L, Raman SS, Raz S. Role of static and dynamic MR imaging in surgical pelvic floor dysfunction. Radiographics. 2008;28(4):949–67.
Chang J, Chung SS (2012) An analysis of factors associated with increased perineal descent in women. J Korean Soc Coloproctol 28 (4):195-200. https://doi.org/10.3393/jksc.2012.28.4.195
Mortele KJ, Fairhurst J (2007) Dynamic MR defecography of the posterior compartment: Indications, techniques and MRI fea- tures. European Journal of Radiology 61 (3):462-472. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.11.020
Lee TH, Lee JS, Hong SJ, et al; (2013) Rectal hyposensitivity and functional anorectal outlet obstruction are common entities in patients with functional constipation but are not significantly associated. The Korean journal of internal medicine 28 (1):54-61. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2013.28.1.54
Reiner CS, Tutuian R, Solopova AE, et al ; (2011) MR defecography in patients with dyssyner- gic defecation: spectrum of imaging findings and diagnostic value. The British journal ofradiology 84 (998):136-144. https://doi. org/10.1259/bjr/28989463
Barbaric ZL, Marumoto AK, Raz S. Magnetic resonance imaging of the perineum andpelvic floor. Topics in magnetic resonance imaging: TMRI. 2001;12 (2):83-92.
Chi TW, Chen SH. Dynamic magnetic resonance imaging used in evaluation of female pelvic prolapse: experience from nine cases. The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences. 2007;23 (6):302-8.
