Comparison of Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Defecography With Clinical Examination in Diagnosing Pelvic Floor Dysfunction: An Observational Study.

Abstract

Pelvic floor dysfunction (PFD) is frequently reported in both sexes. Dynamic magnetic resonance defecography (DMRD) is the preferred modality, mainly due to its superiority and complementary role in clinical examination. However, studies from the perspective of Indian patients are scarce and mostly restricted to females. Thus, we assessed the diagnostic performance of DMRD in patients with PFD and correlated the findings with those on clinical examination. This prospective, observational study involved 57 adult patients of either sex, presenting with pelvic floor symptoms (PFS) and diagnosed with PFD. Initially, the patients underwent clinical examination, and diagnosis was recorded. Subsequently, the patients were subjected to DMRD. The findings were correlated with the Pearson "r" correlation coefficient. A significantly greater proportion of patients had involvement of multiple compartments (36 vs. 12, p<0.001), cystocele (23 vs. 8, p=0.002), and rectal prolapse (25 vs. 14, p=0.030) on DMRD than clinical examination, while there was no significant difference regarding uterine prolapse (p=0.789). Grading of cystocele and rectal prolapse as well as diagnosis of enterocele/peritoneocele, rectocele, and intussusception could be done only with DMRD. DMRD had a strong and significant correlation with clinical examination regarding cystocele (r=0.943, p=0.003), uterine prolapse (r=0.972, p=0.001), and rectal prolapse (r=0.951, p=0.001). DMRD demonstrated significantly better performance in the diagnosis of multiple compartmentinvolvement, cystocele, and rectal prolapse. DMRD and clinical examination were significantly correlated regarding the diagnosis of cystocele, uterine prolapse, and rectal prolapse. Thus, DMRD provides information, in addition to the clinical examination, and should be used in symptomatic patients.