Significance of defecographic parameters in diagnosing pelvic floor dyssynergia.

Journal of the Korean Surgical Society Pub Date : 2013-04-01 Epub Date: 2013-03-26 DOI:10.4174/jkss.2013.84.4.225
Moo-Kyung Seong, Tae-Won Kim
{"title":"Significance of defecographic parameters in diagnosing pelvic floor dyssynergia.","authors":"Moo-Kyung Seong,&nbsp;Tae-Won Kim","doi":"10.4174/jkss.2013.84.4.225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Defecography is known to be a sensitive and specific measurement of pelvic floor dyssynergia (PFD). However, its standardized parameter for diagnostic analysis is still incomplete. We attempted to determine which defecographic findings are most significant for PFD, and how closely they match other physiologic tests and clinical symptoms of functional pelvic outlet obstruction.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-six patients with constipation who completed work-up of their symptoms with defecography, anorectal manometry and electromyography (EMG) were included in the study. Internal consistency of defecographic findings, and agreements between defecographic findings and results of other tests were statistically analyzed (Crohnbach's α, Cohen's κ, respectively).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 96 patients evaluated, obstructive symptoms of constipation were obvious in 35 (36.5%) by obstructive symptom score. As known defecographic findings for PFD, poor opening of the anal canal was found in 33 (34.4%), persistent posterior angulation of the rectum in 33 (34.4%), and poor emptying of the rectum in 61 (63.5%). Manometric defecation index, manometric evacuation index, and EMG findings compatible with PFD were in 81 (84.4%), 72 (75%), and 73 (76%), respectively. Internal consistency of three defecographic findings was good (α = 0.78). Agreements between each defecographic findings and each result of other tests were all poor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among known defecographic findings for PFD, one specific finding cannot be considered more important than the others for its diagnosis. It is hard to expect consistent results of various diagnostic tests and to predict the presence of defecographic PFD by use of anorectal manometry, EMG, or even by clinical symptoms.</p>","PeriodicalId":49991,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society","volume":"84 4","pages":"225-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4174/jkss.2013.84.4.225","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Korean Surgical Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2013.84.4.225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/3/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Purpose: Defecography is known to be a sensitive and specific measurement of pelvic floor dyssynergia (PFD). However, its standardized parameter for diagnostic analysis is still incomplete. We attempted to determine which defecographic findings are most significant for PFD, and how closely they match other physiologic tests and clinical symptoms of functional pelvic outlet obstruction.

Methods: Ninety-six patients with constipation who completed work-up of their symptoms with defecography, anorectal manometry and electromyography (EMG) were included in the study. Internal consistency of defecographic findings, and agreements between defecographic findings and results of other tests were statistically analyzed (Crohnbach's α, Cohen's κ, respectively).

Results: Of the 96 patients evaluated, obstructive symptoms of constipation were obvious in 35 (36.5%) by obstructive symptom score. As known defecographic findings for PFD, poor opening of the anal canal was found in 33 (34.4%), persistent posterior angulation of the rectum in 33 (34.4%), and poor emptying of the rectum in 61 (63.5%). Manometric defecation index, manometric evacuation index, and EMG findings compatible with PFD were in 81 (84.4%), 72 (75%), and 73 (76%), respectively. Internal consistency of three defecographic findings was good (α = 0.78). Agreements between each defecographic findings and each result of other tests were all poor.

Conclusion: Among known defecographic findings for PFD, one specific finding cannot be considered more important than the others for its diagnosis. It is hard to expect consistent results of various diagnostic tests and to predict the presence of defecographic PFD by use of anorectal manometry, EMG, or even by clinical symptoms.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
排便造影参数在诊断盆底协同功能障碍中的意义。
目的:排粪造影是一种敏感而特异的测量骨盆底协同功能障碍(PFD)的方法。然而,其用于诊断分析的标准化参数仍不完整。我们试图确定哪些排便图表现对PFD最重要,以及它们与功能性盆腔出口梗阻的其他生理检查和临床症状的匹配程度。方法:96例便秘患者均完成了排便造影、肛肠测压和肌电图(EMG)的症状检查。统计分析排便造影结果的内部一致性,以及排便造影结果与其他检查结果之间的一致性(分别为Crohnbach's α, Cohen's κ)。结果:96例患者中有35例(36.5%)便秘梗阻性症状明显。已知的PFD的排便图表现为,33例(34.4%)发现肛管打开不良,33例(34.4%)发现直肠持续后角,61例(63.5%)发现直肠排空不良。压力测量排便指数、压力测量排泄指数和与PFD相符的肌电图分别为81例(84.4%)、72例(75%)和73例(76%)。三项排便造影结果的内部一致性较好(α = 0.78)。每次排便检查结果与其他检查结果之间的一致性都很差。结论:在已知的PFD的排便造影发现中,某一特定发现不能被认为比其他发现更重要。很难期望各种诊断测试的一致结果,也很难通过肛肠测压、肌电图甚至临床症状来预测排便图PFD的存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Matrix Metalloproteinase 41 : inside the presidency of George H.W. Bush Risk factors for lymph node metastasis in mucosal gastric cancer and re-evaluation of endoscopic submucosal dissection The optimal follow-up period in patients with above 5-year disease-free survival after curative liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma. The comparison of single incision laparoscopic cholecystectomy and three port laparoscopic cholecystectomy: prospective randomized study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1