Improved Detection of Pelvic Organ Prolapse: Comparative Utility of Defecography Phase Sequence to Nondefecography Valsalva Maneuvers in Dynamic Pelvic Floor Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Abstract

PURPOSE\nTo evaluate the utility of a defecography phase (DP) sequence in dynamic pelvic floor MRI (DPMRI), in comparison to DPMRI utilizing only non-defecography Valsalva maneuvers (VM).\n\n\nMATERIALS AND METHODS\nInclusion criteria identified 237 female patients with symptoms and/or physical exam findings of pelvic floor prolapse. All DPMRI exams were obtained following insertion of ultrasound gel into the rectum and vagina. Steady-state free-precession sequences in sagittal plane were acquired in the resting state, followed by dynamic cine acquisitions during VM and DP. In all phases, two experienced radiologists performed blinded review using the H-line, M-line, Organ prolapse (HMO) system. The presence of a rectocele, enterocele and inferior descent of the anorectal junction, bladder base, and vaginal vault were recorded in all patients using the pubococcygeal line as a fixed landmark.\n\n\nRESULTS\nDPMRI with DP detected significantly more number of patients than VM (p<0.0001) with vaginal prolapse (231/237, 97.5% vs. 177/237, 74.7%), anorectal prolapse (227/237, 95.8% vs. 197/237, 83.1%), cystocele (197/237, 83.1% vs. 108/237, 45.6%), and rectocele (154/237, 65% vs. 93/237, 39.2%). The median cycstocele (3.2cm vs. 1cm), vaginal prolapse (3cm vs. 1.5cm), anorectal prolapse (5.4cm vs. 4.2cm), H-line (8cm vs. 7.2cm) and M-line (5.3cm vs. 3.9cm) were significantly higher with DP than VM (p<0.0001).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nAddition of DP to DPMRI demonstrates a greater degree of pelvic floor instability as compared to imaging performed during VM alone. Pelvic floor structures may show mild descent or appear normal during VM, with marked prolapse on subsequent DP images.