The Value of Additional Videorecording on Defecography

PURPOSE: To determine the value of additional videorecording during defecography. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Ninety-nine consecutive patients (20 males, 79 females; mean age: 48 yrs) who between august 1996 and June 1997 had undergone defecography due to defecation difficulty were included in this study. In all patients, spotfilming(at rest, during squeezing, during straining) and videorecording during defecography were simultaneouslyperformed. Two radiologists retrospectively reviewed spot films and video images, analyzed discrepancies betweenthe two methods, and reached a consensus. RESULTS: In 52% of patients (51/99), the results of the twoexaminations were discrepant. The most common finding was anterior rectocele(n=33), followed by spastic pelvicfloor syndrome(n=16), rectal intussusception(n=5), posterior rectocele(n=3), mucosal prolapse(n=2), descendingperineal syndrome(n=2), and rectal prolapse(n=1). All findings except spastic pelvic floor syndrome were alsoshown by videorecording. CONCLUSIONS: Because videorecording during defecography showed additional findings in52% of patients, it is a necessary procedure for the diagnosis and management of patients with defecationdifficulty.