Search

Since the presence of intestinal endometriosis cannot be reliably established by physical examination or the evaluation of intestinal symptoms, imaging techniques are required for the diagnosis of bowel endometriosis. This review evaluates the techniques available for the diagnosis of intestinal endometriosis based on a search of the Medline database and Embase up to February 2010. Several studies have proved that radiological techniques (double contrast barium enema, magnetic resonance imaging, and multidetector computerized tomography enteroclysis) are able to accurately diagnose intestinal endometriosis. Magnetic resonance imaging has the advantage of determining the presence of deep endometriotic lesions in other pelvic locations. Rectal endoscopic ultrasonography can precisely determine the presence of bowel endometriosis but its use is limited by the availability of the equipment required to carry out the exam. Over the last five years, several studies have proved that transvaginal ultrasonography is accurate in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis; in addition, this exam is well tolerated by patients and is inexpensive. Therefore, transvaginal ultrasonography should be the first-line investigation in patients with suspected intestinal endometriosis.

To compare the accuracy of magnetic resonance enema (MR-e) and rectal water-contrast transvaginal sonography (RWC-TVS) in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis.This prospective study included 286 patients of reproductive age with clinical suspicion of rectosigmoid endometriosis. Patients underwent MR-e and RWC-TVS before laparoscopic excision of endometriotic lesions. The findings of MR-e and RWC-TVS were compared with surgical and histological results.Of the 286 patients included in the study, 151 (52.8%) had rectosigmoid endometriosis. MR-e and RWC-TVS had similar accuracy in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis (P = 0.063). In the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis with MR-e, the sensitivity was 95.4% (95% CI, 90.7-99.1%), specificity was 97.8% (95% CI, 93.6-99.5%), positive predictive value (PPV) was 98.0% (95% CI, 94.1-99.6%), negative predictive value (NPV) was 95.0% (95% CI, 89.9-97.9%), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was 42.91 (95% CI, 14.01-131.46) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.05 (95% CI, 0.02-0.10). For diagnosis with RWC-TVS, sensitivity was 92.7% (95% CI, 87.3-96.3%), specificity was 97.0% (95% CI, 92.6-99.2%), PPV was 97.2% (95% CI, 93.0-99.2%), NPV was 92.3% (95% CI, 86.6-96.1%), LR+ was 31.29 (95% CI, 11.90-82.25) and LR- was 0.08 (95% CI, 0.04-0.13). MR-e and RWC-TVS underestimated the size of the endometriotic nodules; for both imaging techniques the underestimation was greater for nodules with a diameter ≥ 30 mm. There was no significant difference in the mean intensity of pain experienced by the patients during the two examinations.RWC-TVS should be the first-line investigation in patients with clinical suspicion of rectosigmoid endometriosis and physicians should be trained in performing this examination. Considering that MR-e is more expensive than RWC-TVS, it should be used only when the findings of RWC-TVS are unclear. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John WileySons Ltd.

To compare the performance of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and rectal water-contrast transvaginal sonography (RWC-TVS) in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis, and compare precision in estimating the length of the rectosigmoid nodules and the distance between the nodules and the anal verge.This prospective study included 70 patients of reproductive age with clinical suspicion of rectosigmoid endometriosis. Patients underwent RWC-TVS and CTC before laparoscopic excision of endometriotic nodules. The findings of RWC-TVS and CTC were compared with surgical and histological results.Of the 70 patients included in the study, 40 (57.1%) had rectosigmoid endometriosis. CTC and RWC-TVS had similar accuracy in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis (P = 0.508) and similar precision in estimating the length of the endometriotic nodules (P = 0.077). CTC was more precise than RWC-TVS in estimating the distance between the rectosigmoid nodule and the anal verge (P 0.001). The intensity of pain experienced during CTC was higher than that perceived during RWC-TVS (P 0.001); however, intestinal distension for CTC was well-tolerated in all patients without significant adverse effects.RWC-TVS and CTC have similar accuracy in the diagnosis of rectosigmoid endometriosis and similar precision in estimating the size of the nodules; however, CTC is more precise than RWC-TVS in estimating the distance between the nodules and the anal verge, yet patients tolerate RWC-TVS better than CTC. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John WileySons Ltd.

We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced helical CT in the detection of stones in patients with suspected renal colic from ureteral stones and compared CT findings with the results of plain abdominal film and US.We reviewed the findings relative to 80 patients (age range 24-75) who came to our observation to the Emergency Department with acute flank pain. All patients had been examined with plain abdominal radiography, US and unenhanced helical CT.While abdominal radiography showed the presence of radiopaque stones in 38 patients only (47.5%), US demonstrated ureter dilatation in 72 patients and detected stones in 36 of them (45%). Helical CT performed best, depicting a stone in 72 patients (90%), with high sensitivity and specificity. Mean stone size was 3 mm, with 7 mm-1 mm range. The biggest stones were seen in 3 cases and the smallest ones in 34. In 8 patients with no signs of stones we found other extraurinary conditions, namely pancreatitis, diverticula, renal cancer. We also found a case of urinary tract infection.Thanks to its short execution time and accuracy, helical CT makes the examination of choice in patients with acute flank pain due to renal colic. It is also a most valuable tool in the differential diagnosis of other pathological causes of pain such as abdominal or pelvic masses and inflammatory conditions.