Comparison of changes in rectal area and volume during MR evacuation proctography in healthy and constipated adults

Susrutha Puthanmadhom Narayanan, Mayank Sharma, Joel Garland Fletcher, Ronald A. Karwoski, David R. Holmes, Adil Eddie Bharucha

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: During proctography, rectal emptying is visually estimated by the reduction in rectal area. The correlation between changes in rectal area, which is a surrogate measure of volume, is unclear. Our aims were to compare the change in rectal area and volume during magnetic resonance (MR) proctography and to compare these parameters with rectal balloon expulsion time (BET). Methods: In 49 healthy and 46 constipated participants, we measured BET and rectal area and volume with a software program before and after participants expelled rectal gel during proctography. Key Results: All participants completed both tests; six healthy and 17 constipated patients had a prolonged (>60 seconds) BET. During evacuation, the reduction in rectal area and volume was lower in participants with an abnormal than a normal BET (P < 0.01). The reduction in rectal area and volume were strongly correlated (r = 0.93, P < 0.001) and equivalent for identifying participants with abnormal BET. Among participants with less evacuation, the reduction in rectal area underestimated the reduction in rectal volume. A rectocele larger than 2 cm was observed in eight of 18 (44%) participants in whom the difference between change in volume and area was ˃10% but only 14 of 77 (18%) participants in whom the difference was ≤10% (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Measured with MR proctography, the rectal area is reasonably accurate for quantifying rectal emptying and equivalent to rectal volume for distinguishing between normal and abnormal BET. When evacuation is reduced, the change in rectal area may underestimate the change in rectal volume.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere13608
JournalNeurogastroenterology and Motility
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Rectocele
Software
Gels

Keywords

  • anorectum
  • constipation
  • defecatory disorders
  • defecography
  • pelvic floor dysfunction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physiology
  • Endocrine and Autonomic Systems
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Comparison of changes in rectal area and volume during MR evacuation proctography in healthy and constipated adults. / Puthanmadhom Narayanan, Susrutha; Sharma, Mayank; Fletcher, Joel Garland; Karwoski, Ronald A.; Holmes, David R.; Bharucha, Adil Eddie.

In: Neurogastroenterology and Motility, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f15e1e07fadb4feca2d05256b0c35ce3,
title = "Comparison of changes in rectal area and volume during MR evacuation proctography in healthy and constipated adults",
abstract = "Background: During proctography, rectal emptying is visually estimated by the reduction in rectal area. The correlation between changes in rectal area, which is a surrogate measure of volume, is unclear. Our aims were to compare the change in rectal area and volume during magnetic resonance (MR) proctography and to compare these parameters with rectal balloon expulsion time (BET). Methods: In 49 healthy and 46 constipated participants, we measured BET and rectal area and volume with a software program before and after participants expelled rectal gel during proctography. Key Results: All participants completed both tests; six healthy and 17 constipated patients had a prolonged (>60 seconds) BET. During evacuation, the reduction in rectal area and volume was lower in participants with an abnormal than a normal BET (P < 0.01). The reduction in rectal area and volume were strongly correlated (r = 0.93, P < 0.001) and equivalent for identifying participants with abnormal BET. Among participants with less evacuation, the reduction in rectal area underestimated the reduction in rectal volume. A rectocele larger than 2 cm was observed in eight of 18 (44{\%}) participants in whom the difference between change in volume and area was ˃10{\%} but only 14 of 77 (18{\%}) participants in whom the difference was ≤10{\%} (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Measured with MR proctography, the rectal area is reasonably accurate for quantifying rectal emptying and equivalent to rectal volume for distinguishing between normal and abnormal BET. When evacuation is reduced, the change in rectal area may underestimate the change in rectal volume.",
keywords = "anorectum, constipation, defecatory disorders, defecography, pelvic floor dysfunction",
author = "{Puthanmadhom Narayanan}, Susrutha and Mayank Sharma and Fletcher, {Joel Garland} and Karwoski, {Ronald A.} and Holmes, {David R.} and Bharucha, {Adil Eddie}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/nmo.13608",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Neurogastroenterology and Motility",
issn = "1350-1925",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of changes in rectal area and volume during MR evacuation proctography in healthy and constipated adults

AU - Puthanmadhom Narayanan, Susrutha

AU - Sharma, Mayank

AU - Fletcher, Joel Garland

AU - Karwoski, Ronald A.

AU - Holmes, David R.

AU - Bharucha, Adil Eddie

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: During proctography, rectal emptying is visually estimated by the reduction in rectal area. The correlation between changes in rectal area, which is a surrogate measure of volume, is unclear. Our aims were to compare the change in rectal area and volume during magnetic resonance (MR) proctography and to compare these parameters with rectal balloon expulsion time (BET). Methods: In 49 healthy and 46 constipated participants, we measured BET and rectal area and volume with a software program before and after participants expelled rectal gel during proctography. Key Results: All participants completed both tests; six healthy and 17 constipated patients had a prolonged (>60 seconds) BET. During evacuation, the reduction in rectal area and volume was lower in participants with an abnormal than a normal BET (P < 0.01). The reduction in rectal area and volume were strongly correlated (r = 0.93, P < 0.001) and equivalent for identifying participants with abnormal BET. Among participants with less evacuation, the reduction in rectal area underestimated the reduction in rectal volume. A rectocele larger than 2 cm was observed in eight of 18 (44%) participants in whom the difference between change in volume and area was ˃10% but only 14 of 77 (18%) participants in whom the difference was ≤10% (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Measured with MR proctography, the rectal area is reasonably accurate for quantifying rectal emptying and equivalent to rectal volume for distinguishing between normal and abnormal BET. When evacuation is reduced, the change in rectal area may underestimate the change in rectal volume.

AB - Background: During proctography, rectal emptying is visually estimated by the reduction in rectal area. The correlation between changes in rectal area, which is a surrogate measure of volume, is unclear. Our aims were to compare the change in rectal area and volume during magnetic resonance (MR) proctography and to compare these parameters with rectal balloon expulsion time (BET). Methods: In 49 healthy and 46 constipated participants, we measured BET and rectal area and volume with a software program before and after participants expelled rectal gel during proctography. Key Results: All participants completed both tests; six healthy and 17 constipated patients had a prolonged (>60 seconds) BET. During evacuation, the reduction in rectal area and volume was lower in participants with an abnormal than a normal BET (P < 0.01). The reduction in rectal area and volume were strongly correlated (r = 0.93, P < 0.001) and equivalent for identifying participants with abnormal BET. Among participants with less evacuation, the reduction in rectal area underestimated the reduction in rectal volume. A rectocele larger than 2 cm was observed in eight of 18 (44%) participants in whom the difference between change in volume and area was ˃10% but only 14 of 77 (18%) participants in whom the difference was ≤10% (P = 0.03). Conclusions: Measured with MR proctography, the rectal area is reasonably accurate for quantifying rectal emptying and equivalent to rectal volume for distinguishing between normal and abnormal BET. When evacuation is reduced, the change in rectal area may underestimate the change in rectal volume.

KW - anorectum

KW - constipation

KW - defecatory disorders

KW - defecography

KW - pelvic floor dysfunction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065063843&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065063843&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/nmo.13608

DO - 10.1111/nmo.13608

M3 - Article

JO - Neurogastroenterology and Motility

JF - Neurogastroenterology and Motility

SN - 1350-1925

M1 - e13608

ER -