Scholarlink

Purpose <p>This study aimed to evaluate patients exhibiting a dyssynergic pattern on anorectal manometry (ARM) using Magnetic Resonance Defecography (MRD) to distinguish “true” Dyssynergic Defecation (DD) from structural Non-Dyssynergic Evacuation Disorders (NDED) and to identify the most reliable radiological diagnostic criteria.</p> Materials and methods <p>This retrospective cross-sectional study included 252 patients who exhibited a dyssynergic pattern on ARM. Patients were re-evaluated using MRD and classified into two groups: those confirmed as DD and those reclassified as NDED. The prevalence of structural abnormalities (rectocele, cystocele, descent of the anorectal Junction [DAJ]) and the diagnostic accuracy of MRD parameters (incomplete evacuation, paradoxical sphincter contraction with abnormal anorectal angle [ARA] changes, absence of perineal descent) were analyzed.</p> Results <p>Of the 252 patients diagnosed with dyssynergia by ARM, only 142 (56.3%) were confirmed as DD by MRD, while 110 (43.7%) were diagnosed with NDED. DD was significantly more prevalent in males (69.2%, <i>p</i> = 0.006), whereas structural pathologies were predominant in the NDED group. The presence of cystocele, rectocele, and DAJ significantly reduced the likelihood of a DD diagnosis (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Among diagnostic criteria, the combination of “paradoxical sphincter contraction with abnormal ARA” demonstrated the highest diagnostic validity (Sensitivity: 97.1%, Specificity: 99.1%, Accuracy: 98%). In contrast, incomplete evacuation alone showed high sensitivity (94.3%) but low specificity (45.4%).</p> Conclusion <p>ARM alone is insufficient for diagnosis due to high false-positive rates, particularly in patients with structural abnormalities. MRD plays a crucial complementary role in identifying ‘true’ DD and accurately distinguishing it from structural evacuation disorders. This integrated approach prevents unnecessary biofeedback therapy for patients requiring structural correction.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The diagnostic value of magnetic resonance defecography in differentiating evacuation disorders among patients with manometric dyssynergia

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月24日

查看全文
  • Esin Ölçücüoğlu,
  • İlyas Tenlik,
  • Muhammet Batuhan Gökhan,
  • Halil Tekdemir,
  • Yasin Celal Güneş,
  • Eren Çamur,
  • Mercan Taştemur,
  • Ömer Öztürk

摘要

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate patients exhibiting a dyssynergic pattern on anorectal manometry (ARM) using Magnetic Resonance Defecography (MRD) to distinguish “true” Dyssynergic Defecation (DD) from structural Non-Dyssynergic Evacuation Disorders (NDED) and to identify the most reliable radiological diagnostic criteria.

Materials and methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study included 252 patients who exhibited a dyssynergic pattern on ARM. Patients were re-evaluated using MRD and classified into two groups: those confirmed as DD and those reclassified as NDED. The prevalence of structural abnormalities (rectocele, cystocele, descent of the anorectal Junction [DAJ]) and the diagnostic accuracy of MRD parameters (incomplete evacuation, paradoxical sphincter contraction with abnormal anorectal angle [ARA] changes, absence of perineal descent) were analyzed.

Results

Of the 252 patients diagnosed with dyssynergia by ARM, only 142 (56.3%) were confirmed as DD by MRD, while 110 (43.7%) were diagnosed with NDED. DD was significantly more prevalent in males (69.2%, p = 0.006), whereas structural pathologies were predominant in the NDED group. The presence of cystocele, rectocele, and DAJ significantly reduced the likelihood of a DD diagnosis (p < 0.001). Among diagnostic criteria, the combination of “paradoxical sphincter contraction with abnormal ARA” demonstrated the highest diagnostic validity (Sensitivity: 97.1%, Specificity: 99.1%, Accuracy: 98%). In contrast, incomplete evacuation alone showed high sensitivity (94.3%) but low specificity (45.4%).

Conclusion

ARM alone is insufficient for diagnosis due to high false-positive rates, particularly in patients with structural abnormalities. MRD plays a crucial complementary role in identifying ‘true’ DD and accurately distinguishing it from structural evacuation disorders. This integrated approach prevents unnecessary biofeedback therapy for patients requiring structural correction.