PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the use of defaeco-peritoneography in diagnosing rectal intussusception as distinct from mucosal folds in the rectum, and rectal prolapse as distinct from mucosal prolapse. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients with defaecation disorders were examined by means of defaeco-peritoneography. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients had rectal intussusception and 7 patients had rectal prolapse at defaeco-peritoneography. All these patients had a rectal peritoneocele in the serosal ring-pocket of the rectal intussusception or in the rectal prolapse. Twenty-seven patients had neither rectal intussusception nor rectal prolapse and none of these patients had a rectal peritoneocele. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrated that only patients with a rectal intussusception or rectal prolapse have a rectal peritoneocele. Defaeco-peritoneography therefore offers correct diagnosis of rectal intussusception as distinct from mucosal folds in the rectum, and of rectal prolapse as distinct from mucosal prolapse.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bremmer et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: