PubMed · 917549
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
U László, T Imre, N György, M Károly. 1977-11-06. [Irradiation proctitis].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/917549/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To compare endo-anal and trans-perineal ultrasonography in the detection of anal sphincter lesions. STUDY DESIGN: Sixty-four patients sent for a uro-gynaecological consultation were given tests by two ultrasound methods using the same apparatus (Aloka) with different probes. The endo-anal ultrasound (EAUS) was carried out in a supine position using a rotary circular probe at 7.5 MHz. The trans-perineal ultrasound (TPUS) was carried out using a curved linear probe at 5 MHz, applied to the perineum in the transverse direction, allowing a proximal view of the sphincter. For each image the thicknesses of the two components of the sphincter (internal and external) were noted, as well as the presence of any ultrasonographic tear, its position, and its width on the sphincterian circumference. RESULTS: The average of the internal and external thickness of the sphincters was of 2.8 and 5.6 mm, respectively for the TPUS, and 2.1 and 6.2 mm for the EAUS. Among the 64 patients, 15 external lesions of the anal sphincter were found with the TPUS, and 14 with the EAUS. The kappa correlation coefficient was 48%, with a confidence interval of 95%. CONCLUSION: The endo-anal technique, which provides a staged analysis of the anal sphincter muscle, remains the benchmark of sphincterian imaging. TPUS is a useful method, in that it gives good visualisation of anatomical structures, but its sensitivity in detecting sphincter lesions remain to be demonstrated.
BACKGROUND: We aim to establish the evidence base for the recognition and management of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) and to compare this with current practice amongst UK obstetricians and coloproctologists. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature and a postal questionnaire survey of consultant obstetricians, trainee obstetricians and consultant coloproctologists was carried out. RESULTS: We found a wide variation in experience of repairing acute anal sphincter injury. The group with largest experience were consultant obstetricians (46.5% undertaking > or = 5 repairs/year), whilst only 10% of responding colorectal surgeons had similar levels of experience (p < 0.001). There was extensive misunderstanding in terms of the definition of obstetric anal sphincter injuries. Overall, trainees had a greater knowledge of the correct classification (p < 0.01). Observational studies suggest that a new 'overlap' repair using PDS sutures with antibiotic cover gives better functional results. However, our literature search found only one randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the technique of repair of OASI, which showed no difference in incidence of anal incontinence at three months. Despite this, there was a wide variation in practice, with 337(50%) consultants, 82 (55%) trainees and 80 (89%) coloproctologists already using the 'overlap' method for repair of a torn EAS (p < 0.001). Although over 50% of colorectal surgeons would undertake long-term follow-up of their patients, this was the practice of less than 10% of obstetricians (p < 0.001). Whilst over 70% of coloproctologists would recommend an elective caesarean section in a subsequent pregnancy, only 22% of obstetric consultants and 14% of trainees (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: An agreed classification of OASI, development of national guidelines, formalised training, multidisciplinary management and further definitive research is strongly recommended.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.