Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Pelvic MRI: Is Endovaginal or Rectal Filling Needed?

  • Engelaere, Constance (Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Reims) ;
  • Poncelet, Edouard (Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalier de Valenciennes) ;
  • Durot, Carole (Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Reims) ;
  • Dohan, Anthony (Department of Abdominal Imaging, Hopital Lariboisiere-APHP) ;
  • Rousset, Pascal (Department of Radiology, Hospices civils de Lyon, Centre hospitalier Lyon-Sud, Universite Claude-Bernard Lyon) ;
  • Hoeffel, Christine (Department of Radiology, Centre Hospitalo-Universitaire de Reims)
  • Received : 2017.06.22
  • Accepted : 2017.10.07
  • Published : 2018.06.01
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging is the optimal modality for pelvic imaging. It is based on T2-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) sequences allowing uterine and vaginal cavity assessment as well as rectal evaluation. Anatomical depiction of these structures may benefit from distension, and conditions either developing inside the lumen of cavities or coming from the outside may then be better delineated and localized. The need for distension, either rectal or vaginal, and the way to conduct it are matters of debate, depending on indication for which the MR examination is being conducted. In this review, we discuss advantages and potential drawbacks of this technique, based on literature and our experience, in the evaluation of various gynecological and rectal diseases.

Keywords

References

  1. Lienemann A, Fischer T. Functional imaging of the pelvic floor. Eur J Radiol 2003;47:117-122 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(03)00164-5
  2. Bitti GT, Argiolas GM, Ballicu N, Caddeo E, Cecconi M, Demurtas G, et al. Pelvic floor failure: MR imaging evaluation of anatomic and functional abnormalities. Radiographics 2014;34:429-448 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.342125050
  3. Marchiole P, Cittadini G, Sala P, Moioli M, Mathevet P, Capaccio E, et al. Pre- and post-operative work-up in patients affected by early cervical cancer and eligible for fertilitysparing treatment: role of MRI with saline hydrocolpos. Abdom Imaging 2010;35:271-279 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9511-1
  4. Maccioni F. Functional disorders of the ano-rectal compartment of the pelvic floor: clinical and diagnostic value of dynamic MRI. Abdom Imaging 2013;38:930-951 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9955-6
  5. Hetzer FH, Andreisek G, Tsagari C, Sahrbacher U, Weishaupt D. MR defecography in patients with fecal incontinence: imaging findings and their effect on surgical management. Radiology 2006;240:449-457 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2401050648
  6. Reiner CS, Weishaupt D. Dynamic pelvic floor imaging: MRI techniques and imaging parameters. Abdom Imaging 2013;38:903-911 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9857-7
  7. Reiner CS, Tutuian R, Solopova AE, Pohl D, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR defecography in patients with dyssynergic defecation: spectrum of imaging findings and diagnostic value. Br J Radiol 2011;84:136-144 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/28989463
  8. Maas M, Lambregts DM, Lahaye MJ, Beets GL, Backes W, Vliegen RF, et al. T-staging of rectal cancer: accuracy of 3.0 Tesla MRI compared with 1.5 Tesla. Abdom Imaging 2012;37:475-481 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-011-9770-5
  9. Ye F, Zhang H, Liang X, Ouyang H, Zhao X, Zhou C. Journal club: preoperative MRI evaluation of primary rectal cancer: intrasubject comparison with and without rectal distention. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016;207:32-39 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15383
  10. Fiaschetti V, Crusco S, Meschini A, Cama V, Di Vito L, Marziali M, et al. Deeply infiltrating endometriosis: evaluation of retro-cervical space on MRI after vaginal opacification. Eur J Radiol 2012;81:3638-3645 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.06.058
  11. Chassang M, Novellas S, Bloch-Marcotte C, Delotte J, Toullalan O, Bongain A, et al. Utility of vaginal and rectal contrast medium in MRI for the detection of deep pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1003-1010 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-009-1627-8
  12. Novellas S, Marcotte Bloch C, Berthier F, Fournol M, Delotte J, Bongain A, et al. [Anatomy of the female pelvis on MRI: value of intravaginal contrast]. J Radiol 2009;90(7-8 Pt 1):819-824 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0221-0363(09)73213-5
  13. Bazot M, Gasner A, Lafont C, Ballester M, Darai E. Deep pelvic endometriosis: limited additional diagnostic value of postcontrast in comparison with conventional MR images. Eur J Radiol 2011;80:331-339 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.09.028
  14. Macario S, Chassang M, Novellas S, Baudin G, Delotte J, Toullalan O, et al. The value of pelvic MRI in the diagnosis of posterior cul-de-sac obliteration in cases of deep pelvic endometriosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;199:1410-1415 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7898
  15. Chamie LP, Blasbalg R, Pereira RM, Warmbrand G, Serafini PC. Findings of pelvic endometriosis at transvaginal US, MR imaging, and laparoscopy. Radiographics 2011;31:77-100 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.314105193
  16. Takeuchi H, Kuwatsuru R, Kitade M, Sakurai A, Kikuchi I, Shimanuki H, et al. A novel technique using magnetic resonance imaging jelly for evaluation of rectovaginal endometriosis. Fertil Steril 2005;83:442-447 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.08.021
  17. Kikuchi I, Kuwatsuru R, Yamazaki K, Kumakiri J, Aoki Y, Takeda S. Evaluation of the usefulness of the MRI jelly method for diagnosing complete cul-de-sac obliteration. Biomed Res Int 2014;2014:437962
  18. Loubeyre P, Copercini M, Frossard JL, Wenger JM, Petignat P. Pictorial review: rectosigmoid endometriosis on MRI with gel opacification after rectosigmoid colon cleansing. Clin Imaging 2012;36:295-300 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2011.09.010
  19. Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C, Kinkel K, Cunha TM, Guerra A, et al. European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol 2017;27:2765-2775 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4673-z
  20. Coutinho A Jr, Bittencourt LK, Pires CE, Junqueira F, Lima CM, Coutinho E, et al. MR imaging in deep pelvic endometriosis: a pictorial essay. Radiographics 2011;31:549-567 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.312105144
  21. Brown MA, Mattrey RF, Stamato S, Sirlin CB. MRI of the female pelvis using vaginal gel. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1221-1227 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1660
  22. El Sayed RF, Alt CD, Maccioni F, Meissnitzer M, Masselli G, Manganaro L, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of pelvic floor dysfunction - joint recommendations of the ESUR and ESGAR pelvic floor working group. Eur Radiol 2017;27:2067-2085 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4471-7
  23. Colaiacomo MC, Masselli G, Polettini E, Lanciotti S, Casciani E, Bertini L, et al. Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor: a pictorial review. Radiographics 2009;29:e35 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.e35
  24. Khatri G, Bailey AA, Bacsu C, Christie AL, Kumar N, Pedrosa I, et al. Influence of rectal gel volume on defecation during dynamic pelvic floor magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Imaging 2015;39:1027-1031 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.05.018
  25. Francesca M, Najwa AA, Valeria B, Fabrizio M, Marileda I, Massimo M, et al. Prospective comparison between two different magnetic resonance defecography techniques for evaluating pelvic floor disorders: air-balloon versus gel for rectal filling. Eur Radiol 2016;26:1783-1791 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4016-5
  26. Garcia del Salto L, de Miguel Criado J, Aguilera del Hoyo LF, Gutierrez Velasco L, Fraga Rivas P, Manzano Paradela M, et al. MR imaging-based assessment of the female pelvic floor. Radiographics 2014;34:1417-1439 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.345140137
  27. Lienemann A, Anthuber C, Baron A, Kohz P, Reiser M. Dynamic MR colpocystorectography assessing pelvic-floor descent. Eur Radiol 1997;7:1309-1317 https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300050294
  28. Hoeffel C, Mule S, Laurent V, Bouche O, Volet J, Soyer P. Primary rectal cancer local staging. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014;95:485-494 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2014.03.005
  29. Loubeyre P, Petignat P, Jacob S, Egger JF, Dubuisson JB, Wenger JM. Anatomic distribution of posterior deeply infiltrating endometriosis on MRI after vaginal and rectal gel opacification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;192:1625-1631 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1856
  30. Hottat N, Larrousse C, Anaf V, Noel J-C, Matos C, Absil J, et al. Endometriosis: contribution of 3.0-T pelvic MR imaging in preoperative assessment--initial results. Radiology 2009;253:126-134 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2531082113
  31. Balleyguier C, Sala E, Da Cunha T, Bergman A, Brkljacic B, Danza F, et al. Staging of uterine cervical cancer with MRI: guidelines of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology. Eur Radiol 2011;21:1102-1110 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1998-x
  32. Akata D, Kerimoglu U, Hazirolan T, Karcaaltincaba M, Kose F, Ozmen MN, et al. Efficacy of transvaginal contrast-enhanced MRI in the early staging of cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1727-1733 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-005-2645-9
  33. Young P, Daniel B, Sommer G, Kim B, Herfkens R. Intravaginal gel for staging of female pelvic cancers--preliminary report of safety, distention, and gel-mucosal contrast during magnetic resonance examination. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2012;36:253-256 https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182483c05
  34. Mondot L, Novellas S, Senni M, Piche T, Dausse F, Caramella T, et al. Pelvic prolapse: static and dynamic MRI. Abdom Imaging 2007;32:775-783 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-006-9168-y
  35. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Zamora J, Thornton JG, Raine-Fenning N, Coomarasamy A. The prevalence of congenital uterine anomalies in unselected and high-risk populations: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:761-771 https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr028
  36. Troiano RN, McCarthy SM. Mullerian duct anomalies: imaging and clinical issues. Radiology 2004;233:19-34 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2331020777
  37. Griffin N, Grant LA, Sala E. Magnetic resonance imaging of vaginal and vulval pathology. Eur Radiol 2008;18:1269-1280 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-008-0865-5
  38. Yoo RE, Cho JY, Kim SY, Kim SH. A systematic approach to the magnetic resonance imaging-based differential diagnosis of congenital Mullerian duct anomalies and their mimics. Abdom Imaging 2015;40:192-206 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0195-9
  39. Beets-Tan RG, Lambregts DM, Maas M, Bipat S, Barbaro B, Caseiro-Alves F, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for the clinical management of rectal cancer patients: recommendations from the 2012 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol 2013;23:2522-2531 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2864-4
  40. Slater A, Halligan S, Taylor SA, Marshall M. Distance between the rectal wall and mesorectal fascia measured by MRI: effect of rectal distension and implications for preoperative prediction of a tumour-free circumferential resection margin. Clin Radiol 2006;61:65-70 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2005.08.010

Cited by

  1. A Novel Magnetic Resonance Rectography for Rectal Cancer Staging vol.131, pp.20, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4103/0366-6999.243556
  2. Characteristics of Recent Articles Published in the Korean Journal of Radiology Based on the Citation Frequency vol.21, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2020.1322
  3. Recommendations for MRI technique in the evaluation of pelvic endometriosis: consensus statement from the Society of Abdominal Radiology endometriosis disease-focused panel vol.45, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02483-w
  4. An endovaginal MRI array with a forward‐looking coil for advanced gynecological cancer brachytherapy procedures: Design and initial results vol.48, pp.11, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.15228