[Vaginal prolapse. What dynamic pelvic MRI adds to clinical examination?].
Fiche publication
Date publication
février 2011
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Pr JACQMIN Didier, Pr LANG Hervé, Pr ROY Catherine
Tous les auteurs :
Obringer L, Roy C, Mouracade P, Lang H, Jacqmin D, Saussine C
Lien Pubmed
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: We wanted to study the role of dynamic pelvic MRI (D-MRI) in the surgical management of patients with genito-urinary prolapse. PATIENTS: A routine D-MRI examination before and after laparoscopic double promontofixation was performed in 15 cases with symptomatic vaginal prolapse in need of surgical treatment. The review included also three self-administered questionnaires of symptoms and quality of life. We compared the preoperative clinical evaluation of the studied cases with D-MRI data. Changes after the surgical treatment were also studied. RESULTS: The D-MRI provides an accurate diagnostic evaluation of the pelvis, which is both objective and reproducible. The correlation between clinical scores and radiological magnetic resonance was 53.3% only. In cases with absence of previous pelvic surgery, there was a radio-clinical discrepancy of 40% of cases, while in cases with history of a previous pelvic surgery we found a discrepancy of 60% of cases. This was due to clinical difficulty in differentiating between peritoneocele and rectocele, or due to under-diagnosis of complex prolapse. The sensitivity of MRI in the diagnosis of cystocele, hysterocele and rectocele were respectively 100, 100 and 83%. The gain in sensitivity provided by the MRI was significant for the diagnosis of peritoneocele: 100% against 33%. The specificity was 100%. Static images allowed a detailed study of damaged connective tissues and pelvic muscles. CONCLUSION: The D-MRI seems an appropriate tool in pre-operative assessment of cases with vaginal prolapse. It will help in focusing our surgical strategy, especially in cases that present post-hysterectomy and in cases with residual or recurrent prolapse.
Référence
Prog Urol. 2011 Feb;21(2):93-101