Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Accuracy and Reliability of Endoanal Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Anal Sphincter Injury

  • Chapter
Benign Anorectal Diseases

  • 896 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Stoker J, Halligan S, Bartram CI (2001) Pelvic floor imaging. Radiology 218:621–641

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bartram CI (2003) Ultrasound. In: Bartram CI, DeLancy JOL. Imaging pelvic floor disorders. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Burnett SJD, Bartram CI (1991) Endosonographic variations in the normal internal anal sphincter. Int J Colorect Dis 6:2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Williams AB, Bartram CI, Halligan S et al (2001) Multiplanar anal endosonography — normal anal canal anatomy. Colorectal Dis 3:169–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Frudinger A, Halligan S, Bartram CI et al (2002) Female anal sphincter: age-related differences in asymptomatic volunteers with high-frequency endoanal US. Radiology 224:417–423

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Williams AB, Cheetham MJ, Bartram CI et al (2000) Gender differences in the longitudinal pressure profile of the anal canal related to anatomical structure as demonstrated on three-dimensional anal endosonography. Br J Surg 87:1674–1679

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Nielsen MB, Hauge C, Rasmussen OO et al (1992) Anal sphincter size measured by endosonography in healthy volunteers. Effect of age, sex and parity. Acta Radiol 33:453–456

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Kumar A, Scholefield JH (2000) Endosonography of the anal canal and rectum. World J Surg 24:208–215

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gold DM, Halligan S, Kmiot WA, Bartram CI (1999) Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in anal endosonography. Br J Surg 86:371–375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Enck P, Heyer T, Gantke B et al (1997) How reproducible are measures of the anal sphincter muscle diameter by endoanal ultrasound? Am J Gastroenterol 92:293–296

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Thakar R, Sultan A (2004) Anal endosonography and its role in assessing the incontinent patient. Best Pract Res Clinic Obstet Gynaec 18:157–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Talbot IC et al (1994) Anal endosonography for identifying external sphincter defects confirmed histologically. Br J Surg 81:463–465

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gold DM, Bartram CI, Halligan S et al (1999) Three-dimensional endoanal sonography in assessing anal canal injury. Br J Surg 86:365–370

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bollard RC, Gardiner A, Lindow S et al (2002) Normal female anal sphincter: difficulties in interpretation explained. Dis Colon Rectum 45:171–175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Rociu E, Stoker J, Eijkemans MJC et al (1999) Fecal incontinence: endoanal US versus endoanal MR imaging. Radiology 212:453–458

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Felt-Bersma RJ, van Baren R, Koorevaar M et al (1995) Unsuspected sphincter defects shown by anal endosonography after anorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 38:249–253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA, Bartram CI (1997) Primary degeneration of the internal anal sphincter as a cause of passive faecal incontinence. Lancet 349:612–615

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Felt-Bersma RJ, Cuesta MA, Koorevaar M (1996) Anal sphincter repair improves anorectal function and endosonographic image: a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 39:878–885

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Voyvodic F, Rieger NA, Skinner S et al (2003) Endosonographic imaging of anal sphincter injury. Does the size of the tear correlate with the degree of dysfunction? Dis Colon Rectum 46:735–741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Liberman H, Faria J, Ternent CA et al (2001) A prospective evaluation of the value of anorectal physiology in the management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 44:1567–1574

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gantke B, Schafer A, Enck P, Lubke H (1993) Sonographic, manometric and myographic evaluation of the anal sphincters morphology and function. Dis Colon Rectum 36:1037–1041

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Bennett RC, Friedman MHW, Goligher JC (1963) Late results of haemorrhoidectomy by ligature and excision. BMJ 2:216–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Speakman CT, Burnett SJ, Kamm MA, Bartram CI (1991) Sphincter injury after anal dilatation demonstrated by anal endosonography. Br J Surg 78:1429–1430

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Khubchandani IT, Reed JF (1989) Sequelae of internal sphincterotomy for chronic fissure in ano. Br J Surg 76:431–434

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Kennedy HL, Zegarra JP (1990) Fistulotomy without external sphincter division for high anal fistula. Br J Surg 77:898–901

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Farouk R, Bartolo DCC (1994) The use of endoluminal ultrasound in the assessment of patients with fecal incontinence. J R Coll Surg Edinb 39:312–318

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Burnett SJ, Spence-Jones C, Speakman CT et al (1991) Unsuspected sphincter damage following childbirth revealed by anal endosonography. Br J Radiol 64:225–227

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Nielsen MB, Rasmussen OO, Pedersen JF, Christiansen J (1993) Anal endosonographic findings in patients with obstructed defecation. Acta Radiol 34:35–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Stoker J, Rociu E, Zwamborn AW et al (1999) Endoluminal MR imaging of the rectum and anus: technique, applications and pitfalls. Radiographics 19:383–398

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Williams AB, Bartram CI, Modhwadia D et al (2001) Endocoil magnetic resonance imaging quantifictaion of external anal sphincter atrophy. Br J Surg 88:853–859

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Nielsen MB, Dammegaard L, Pedersen JF (1994) Endosonographic assessment of the anal sphincter after surgical reconstruction. Dis Colon Rectum 37:434–438

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Savoye-Collet C, Savoye G, Koning E et al (1999) Anal endosonography after sphincter repair: specific patterns related to clinical outcome. Abdom Imaging 24:569–573

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Deen KI, Kumar D, Williams JG (1993) Anal sphincter defects: correlation between endoanal ultrasound and surgery. Ann Surg 218:201–205

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Sentovich SM, Wong WD, Blatchford GJ (1998) Accuracy and reliability of transanal ultrasound for anterior anal sphincter injury. Dis Colon Rectum 41:1000–1004

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Gold DM, Halligan S, Kmiot WA, Bartram CI (1999) Intraobserver and interobserver agreement in anal endosonography. Br J Surg 86:371–375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Abramowitz L, Sobhani I, Ganansia R et al (2000) Are sphincter defects the cause of anal incontinence after vaginal delivery? Results of a prospective study. Dis Colon Rectum 43:590–598

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Christensen AF, Nyhuus B, Nielsen MB, Christensen H (2005) Three-dimensional anal endosonography may improve diagnostic confidence of detecting damage to the anal sphincter complex. Br J Rad 78:308–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. West RL, Dwarkasing S, Briel JW et al (2005) Can three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography detect external anal sphincter atrophy? A comparison with endoanal magnetic resonance imaging. Int J Colorectal Dis 20:328–333

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine and Gastroenterology, University of Bologna, S. Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Bologna, Italy

    G. Gizzi M.D. (Associate Professor)

Authors
  1. G. A. Santoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. Gizzi M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Italia

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Santoro, G.A., Gizzi, G. (2006). Accuracy and Reliability of Endoanal Ultrasonography in the Evaluation of Anal Sphincter Injury. In: Benign Anorectal Diseases. Springer, Milano. https://doi.org/10.1007/88-470-0507-8_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/88-470-0507-8_11

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Milano

  • Print ISBN: 978-88-470-0336-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-88-470-0507-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation