Search

Pelvic floor dysfunction is prevalent, with multifactorial causes and variable clinical presentations. Accurate diagnosis and assessment of the involved structures commonly requires a multidisciplinary approach. Imaging is often complementary to clinical assessment, and the most commonly used modalities for pelvic floor imaging include fluoroscopic defecography, magnetic resonance defecography, and pelvic floor ultrasound. This collaboration opinion paper was developed by representatives from multiple specialties involved in care of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction (radiologists, urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons). Here, we discuss the utility of imaging techniques in various clinical scenarios, highlighting the perspectives of referring physicians. The final draft was endorsed by the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR), American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS), and the American Urological Association (AUA).

Pelvic floor disorders are common and can negatively impact quality of life. Imaging of patients with pelvic floor disorders has been extremely heterogeneous between institutions due in part to variations in clinical expectations, technical considerations, and radiologist experience. In order to assess variations in utilization and technique of pelvic floor imaging across practices, the society of abdominal radiology (SAR) disease-focused panel on pelvic floor dysfunction developed and administered an online survey to radiologists including the SAR membership. Results of the survey were compared with published recommendations for pelvic floor imaging to identify areas in need of further standardization. MRI was the most commonly reported imaging technique for pelvic floor imaging followed by fluoroscopic defecography. Ultrasound was only used by a small minority of responding radiologists. The survey responses demonstrated variability in imaging utilization, patient referral patterns, imaging protocols, patient education, and interpretation and reporting of pelvic floor imaging examinations. This survey highlighted inconsistencies in technique between institutions as well as potential gaps in knowledge that should be addressed to standardize evaluation of patients with pelvic floor dysfunction.

Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is assessed differently by gynecologists and radiologists. It is clinically staged by physical examination using the POP-Q (Pelvic Organ Prolapse Quantification) system and radiologically staged by modalities such as by Magnetic Resonance Defecography (MRD). The purpose of this study was to correlate the two methods of staging pelvic organ prolapse for each pelvic compartment by comparing correlative anatomic points and differences in technique. This understanding will help synthesize information from two different perspectives and bridge the gap between multiple specialists who participate in the care of patients with complex pelvic floor disorders. A retrospective single institution study comparison of patients who underwent both dynamic magnetic resonance pelvic floor imaging and pelvic organ prolapse quantification (POP-Q) at our medical center was done. Two urogynecologists performed the POP-Q and one fellowship-trained radiologist interpreted the MRD and both staged pelvic organ prolapse independently. A total of 280 patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pelvic floor from 1/2013 to 12/2017, of whom 68 met our inclusion criteria. When compared to POP-Q, MRI has strong, moderate, and weak correlation for quantification of anterior, middle, and posterior compartment prolapse, respectively. POP-Q measurements Aa, Ba, C, and D are analogous to true pelvic anatomical landmarks which are directly and consistently measurable by MRI, hence accounting for the better correlation in anterior and middle compartments when compared to measurements Ap and Bp which do not correlate with true anatomical landmarks, and hence can explain the weak correlation for posterior compartment prolapse. When comparing POP-Q to MRI, anterior and middle compartment prolapse have better correlation than posterior compartment prolapse. Inherent differences that exist in technique and anatomic landmarks used for staging pelvic organ prolapse by clinical exam and imaging criteria account for this. MRD, however, still provides anatomic details on static images, real time simultaneous overview of multi-compartmental prolapse, characterizes contents of cul-de-sac hernias and rectal evacuation on dynamic imaging. Corroborative information derived from both methods of staging organ will result in optimum patient care.

To develop recommendations for magnetic resonance (MR) defecography technique based on consensus of expert radiologists on the disease-focused panel of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR). An extensive questionnaire was sent to a group of 20 experts from the disease-focused panel of the SAR. The questionnaire encompassed details of technique and MRI protocol used for evaluating pelvic floor disorders. 75% agreement on questionnaire responses was defined as consensus. The expert panel reached consensus for 70% of the items and provided the basis of these recommendations for MR defecography technique. There was unanimous agreement that patients should receive coaching and explanation of commands used during MR defecography, the rectum should be distended with contrast agent, and that sagittal T2-weighted images should include the entire pelvis within the field of view. The panel also agreed unanimously that IV contrast should not be used for MR defecography. Additional areas of consensus ranged in agreement from 75 to 92%. We provide a set of consensus recommendations for MR defecography technique based on a survey of expert radiologists in the SAR pelvic floor dysfunction disease-focused panel. These recommendations can be used to develop a standardized imaging protocol.

To evaluate the utility of inversion scout (TI-scout) obtained during cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) in diagnosing myocardial amyloid infiltration. A retrospective analysis of CMR exams in 39 patients (24 males, age range 29–77 years) was performed. Imaging was performed on a 1.5T system, and included steady state cine, post contrast TI-scout and delayed enhancement images. Evaluations included studies in 13 patients with myocardial amyloidosis and 26 patients without myocardial amyloidosis. To characterize abnormal nulling, the time to myocardial nulling on the TI scout was compared to the null times of the blood pool and spleen for each scan. The sensitivity and specificity of different tissue nulling abnormalities for myocardial amyloidosis were computed. The null times of tissues in 18/26 (69 %) patients in the non-amyloid group followed a consistent order with the blood pool null time preceding the myocardial nulling which was equal to that of splenic nulling (Type 1 pattern). This order differed in all 13 patients with myocardial amyloidosis described as three non-mutually exclusive nulling categories: 10 patients had myocardial null time preceding or coincident with blood pool (Type 2 pattern); in 11 patients myocardial null time was non-coincident with splenic nulling (Type 3 pattern); and in 8 patients myocardial null time was non-coincident with both blood pool AND splenic nulling (Type 4 pattern). While no patient exhibited Type 4 nulling pattern in the non-amyloid group, 1/26 patient had a Type 2 and 7/26 patients had a Type 3 nulling pattern. A sensitivity of 100 % was obtained when either Type 2 OR Type 3 nulling was present while a specificity of 100 % was obtained when both Type 2 AND Type 3 nulling were present together (Type 4 pattern). Our study demonstrates that the pattern of nulling on the TI scout sequence CMR has potential diagnostic utility for the presence of myocardial amyloidosis. The temporal pattern of myocardial, blood pool and splenic nulling needs to be carefully evaluated on the TI scout sequence and could prove useful in other infiltrative cardiomyopathies.