PubMed · 11593231
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
R E Karulf, R D Madoff, S M Goldberg. 2001. Rectal prolapse.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11593231/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Few studies related to parity address the changes in anorectal function in women. Since the majority of patients with rectal prolapse are women, we undertook this study to assess the role of parity in the development of rectal prolapse. We retrospectively reviewed defecography studies performed on 354 female patients over a 10-year period. Studies noting the presence of intra-anal and external rectal prolapse (full thickness protrusion of the rectum into and through the anal sphincter) were reviewed. Cases with intrarectal or hidden rectal prolapse, a condition of lesser clinical importance, were excluded. The obstetric histories of the patients with rectal prolapse (n = 27) were compared to those of patients without rectal prolapse (n = 88). There was a larger proportion of nulliparous women in the rectal prolapse group than in the group without rectal prolapse, suggesting that factors in addition to parity play a role in the development of rectal prolapse. However, parous women with rectal prolapse had delivered significantly more children (3.3) than parous women without prolapse (2.5) (P = 0.03). The exact cause of rectal prolapse remains unclear. Childbearing appears to play a limited role in its pathogenesis since nulliparous women are also at risk of developing rectal prolapse.
PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of evacuation proctography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-seven referring clinicians completed preevacuation proctography questionnaires for 50 patients, detailing diagnoses, confidence in these, intended management, and what they hoped to learn. After evacuation proctography, the radiology report was returned with a second questionnaire asking the diagnosis in the light of evacuation proctographic findings, their confidence, and what they had learned. Clinicians quantified management contribution and indicated how useful they found evacuation proctography in general. Results from pre- and post-evacuation proctography questionnaires were compared to determine the diagnostic and therapeutic effects. RESULTS: Diagnostic confidence rose significantly after evacuation proctography (mean, 7.0 before evacuation proctography vs 8.4 after evacuation proctography; P < .001). Lead diagnosis changed in nine (18%) patients. Intended surgical management became nonsurgical after evacuation proctography in seven (14%) patients, and intended nonsurgical therapy became surgical in two (4%). Surgery remained likely in 15 patients, but its nature changed in five (10%). Five (10%) clinicians stated that evacuation proctographic findings resolved diagnostic conflict, and nine (18%) found that evacuation proctographic findings revealed unsuspected diagnoses. Clinicians found evacuation proctography of major benefit in 20 (40%) cases studied and of moderate benefit in 20 (40%). In general, 20 (43%) clinicians found evacuation proctography very useful and 24 (51%) found it moderately useful. CONCLUSION: Evacuation proctography has a substantial diagnostic and therapeutic effect and is of considerable benefit to referring clinicians.