Diagnostic Ability of Ultrasonography Compared with Computed Tomography for Assessing Rectal Feces.

Objectives: Chronic constipation is a common gastrointestinal disorder, and management is crucial. Computed tomography (CT) is useful for evaluating rectal fecal mass but limited owing to radiation exposure, cost, and inaccessibility at certain facilities. Ultrasonography (US) avoids these pitfalls, but it is unknown whether it accurately assesses rectal feces. In this study, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of US compared with CT as the gold standard for assessing rectal feces.
Methods: We prospectively evaluated rectal fecal mass retention using US performed within 1 h of CT to assess the degree of agreement between methodologies. Rectal stool findings were evaluated on three levels: no stool (R1), presence of stool (R2), and hard stool filling (R3).
Results: The sample included 100 patients (55 men, 45 women), of whom 47 were constipated. The kappa coefficients for rectal content detection were excellent between US and CT ( p <0.001). Eighty-two cases (R1: 46 cases; R2: 28 cases; R3: 8 cases) were matched with CT and US findings, and 18 were not. Cases that did not match had low urine or high gas volumes. CT and US findings showed high agreement in constipation (kappa coefficient 0.674, p <0.001) and non-constipation groups (kappa coefficient 0.677, p <0.001). All cases with R3 on CT were found in the constipation group, while more than half of the cases with R1 on CT were in the non-constipation group.
Conclusions: CT and US showed high agreement in evaluating rectal fecal mass retention, indicating that US can substitute CT.
Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest Atsushi Nakajima has received honoraria from PDR Adiopharma Inc. Astellas, Mylan EPD, EA Pharma, Kowa Pharma, Taisyo Pharma and Bioferumin Pharma.
(Copyright © 2024 The Japan Society of Coloproctology.)