Warning: fopen(/home/virtual/colon/journal/upload/ip_log/ip_log_2025-04.txt): failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 95 Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 96 Characteristic Findings and Their Clinical Appraisal of Proctography and Cinedefecography in Patients with Pelvic Outlet Obstructive Disease.
Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search
Advanced Search
mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Korean Soc Coloproctol > Volume 19(2); 2003 > Article
Original Article
Characteristic Findings and Their Clinical Appraisal of Proctography and Cinedefecography in Patients with Pelvic Outlet Obstructive Disease.
Kim, Kyong Rae , Kim, Young Sok , Chung, Soon Sup , Lee, Chang Hee , Chae, Gi Bong , Roh, Hye Rin , Choi, Won Jin , Park, Ung Chae
Journal of the Korean Society of Coloproctology 2003;19(2):94-100

1Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Kon-kuk University, Chungju, Korea. gs3945@dreamwiz.com
2Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Kon-kuk University, Chungju, Korea.
3Department of Surgery, College of Medicine, Kang-won University, Chuncheon, Korea.
prev next
  • 1,176 Views
  • 15 Download
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

Abstract

PURPOSE
We were assessed the characteristic findings of defecography and cinedefecography in patients with pelvic outlet obstructive disease, and compared the characteristic physiologic findings between proctography and cinedefecography.
METHODS
Physiologic findings of 196 patients who were performed at least two items of physiologic tests were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were categorized as rectocele (Group I: n=119), nonrelaxing puborectalis syndrome (Group II: n=58), rectoanal intussusception (Group III: n=16), significant sigmoidocele (Group IV: n=3). The proctographic and cinedefecographic features were analyzed according to disease categories. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, false positive rate, false negative rate, diagnostic rate, and reproducibility were calculated, and we analyzed the difference between proctography and cinedefecography according to the disease groups.
RESULTS
On the proctographic examinations; 1) 112 patients were confirmed as a clinically significant rectocele (n=128, sensitivity; 94%, specificity; 79%, accuracy; 88%, false positive rate; 21%, false negative rate; 6%, kappa; 0.749). 2) A clinically significant nonrelaxing puborectalis were 36 patients (n=73, sensitivity; 62%, specificity; 73%, accuracy; 70%, false positive rate; 27%, false negative rate; 38%, kappa; 0.328). 3) 12 patients were confirmed as significant rectoanal intussusception (n=31, sensitivity; 75%, specificity; 89%, accuracy; 88%, false positive rate; 11%, false negative rate; 25%, kappa; 0.425). 4) 3 patients were confirmed as clinically significant sigmoidocele (n=15, sensitivity; 100%, specificity; 94%, accuracy; 94%, false positive rate; 6%, false negative rate; 0%, kappa; 0.316). On the combination of proctography and cinedefecography; 1) 117 patients were confirmed as a clinically significant rectocele (n=122, sensitivity; 98%, specificity; 94%, accuracy; 96%, false positive rate; 6%, false negative rate; 2%, kappa; 0.925). 2) A clinically significant nonrelaxing puborectalis were 50 patients (n=64, sensitivity; 86%, specificity; 90%, accuracy; 88%, false positive rate; 10%, false negative rate; 14%, kappa; 0.738). 3) 16 patients were confirmed as significant rectoanal intussusception (n=22, sensitivity; 100%, specificity; 97%, accuracy; 97%, false positive rate; 3%, false negative rate; 0%, kappa; 0.826). 4) 3 patients were confirmed as clinically significant sigmoidocele (n=9, sensitivity; 100%, specificity; 97%, accuracy; 97%, false positive rate; 3%, false negative rate; 0%, kappa; 0.488). As compared with combined study (proctography plus cinedefecography), the proctography show decreased diagnostic rates in the evaluation of rectocele (P<0.05), nonrelaxing puborectalis (P<0.01), and rectoanal intussusception (P<0.05). And, the proctography also show increased false positive rate in the evaluation of rectocele (P<0.01), nonrelaxing puborectalis (P<0.01), and rectoanal intussusception (P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
In our study, proctography showed a tendency to overdiagnosis. Therefore, the combined study of proctography and cinedefecography should be taken as a diagnostic tools for pelvic outlet obstructive disease. Adhering to these findings, other anorectal physiologic studies should be added for the clinically significant diagnosis.

Related articles
Ann Coloproctol : Annals of Coloproctology Twitter Facebook
© Korean Society of Coloproctology.
TOP