Ultrasound semiotics of solitary rectal ulcer
https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2024-23-2-68-75
Abstract
AIM: to develop ultrasound semiotics of solitary rectal ulcer (SRU).
PATIENTS AND METHODS: fifty-eight patients with a histologically verified SRU were included in the retrospective study. All patients underwent colonoscopy and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). Changes in rectal wall detected by TRUS were compared with colonoscopy data.
RESULTS: On TRUS SRU is represented by a significantly thickened rectal wall (median thickness of the rectal wall in the region of SRU is 9 (7–10) mm and 5 (4–6) mm outside, p < 0.001), most often with a predominance of muscular and submucosal layers (46/58, 79%). The structure and echogenicity of these layers are changed: the connective tissue layer is visualized in muscular layer (51/58, 88%), submucosal layer is hypoechogenic (47/58, 81%), boundaries between rectal wall layers are faded (50/58, 86%). Ulcers in SRU are characterized by presence of areas where the mucous layer cannot be traced (sensitivity 100%, specificity 95%), its extent is comparable to extent of ulcers detected on colonoscopy (p = 0.528). Polypoid SRU is characterized by local thickening of the mucosa (sensitivity 89%, specificity 95%). TRUS location of the SRU in height (p = 0.644) is comparable with colonoscopy data.
CONCLUSION: the study determined general ultrasound signs of SRU and made it possible to differentiate macroscopic forms of SRU from each other with TRUS.
About the Authors
A. E. Pershina
Ryzhikh National Medical Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Salyama Adilya st., 2, Moscow, 123423, Russia
Yu. L. Trubacheva
Ryzhikh National Medical Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Salyama Adilya st., 2, Moscow, 123423, Russia
V. V. Veselov
Ryzhikh National Medical Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Salyama Adilya st., 2, Moscow, 123423, Russia
O. M. Biryukov
Ryzhikh National Medical Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Salyama Adilya st., 2, Moscow, 123423, Russia
O. A. Mainovskaya
Ryzhikh National Medical Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Salyama Adilya st., 2, Moscow, 123423, Russia
References
1. Madigan MR, Morson BC. Solitary ulcer of the rectum. Gut. 1969;10:871–881. doi: 10.1136/gut.10.11.871
2. Sadeghi A, Biglari M, Forootan M, et al. Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome: A narrative review. Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases. 2019;11(3):129–134. doi: 10.15171/mejdd.2019.138
3. Rutter KR. Electromyographic changes in certain pelvic floor abnormalities. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1974;67(1):53–56.
4. Rutter KR. Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1975;68(1):22–26.
5. Alexander-Williams J. Solitary-ulcer syndrome of the rectum. Its association with occult rectal prolapse. Lancet. 1977;1(8004):170–171. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(77)91766-4
6. Nuernberg D, Saftoiu A, Barreiros AP, et al. EFSUMB Recommendations for Gastrointestinal Ultrasound Part 3: Endorectal, Endoanal and Perineal Ultrasound. Ultrasound international open. 2019;5(1):E34–E51. doi: 10.1055/a-0825-6708
7. Nylund K, Maconi G, Hollerweger A, et al. EFSUMB Recommendations and Guidelines for Gastrointestinal Ultrasound. Ultraschall in der Medizin. 2017;38(3):e1–e15. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-115853
8. VanOutryve MJ, Pelckmans PA, Fierens H, et al. Transrectal ultrasound study of the pathogenesis of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. Gut. 1993;34(10):1422–1426. doi: 10.1136/gut.34.10.1422
9. Hizawa K, Iida M, Suekane H, et al. Mucosal prolapse syndrome: diagnosis with endoscopic US. Radiology. 1994;191(2):527–530. doi: 10.1148/radiology.191.2.8153334
10. Tang X, Han C, Sheng L, et al. Rectal mucosal prolapse with an emphasis on endoscopic ultrasound appearance. Digestive and liver disease: official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver. 2021;53(4):427–433. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2020.11.023
11. Petritsch W, Hinterleitner TA, Aichbichler B, et al. Endosonography in colitis cystica profunda and solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 1996;44(6):746–751. doi: 10.1016/s0016-5107(96)70067-6
12. Sharma М, Somani P, Patil A, et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography of solitary rectal ulcer syndrome. Endoscopy. 2016;48:E76–E77. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-102449
13. Simsek A, Yagci G, Gorgulu S, et al. Diagnostic Features and Treatment Modalities in Solitary Rectal Ulcer Syndrome. Acta Chirurgica Belgica. 2004;104(1):92–96. doi: 10.1080/00015458.2003.11978402
14. Blanco F, Frasson M, Flor-Lorente B, et al. Solitary rectal ulcer: Ultrasonographic and magnetic resonance imaging patterns mimicking rectal cancer. European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2011;23(12):1262–1266. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e32834b0dee
15. Cola B, Cuicchi D, Dalla Via, B, et al. Endosonographic pattern of solitary polypoid rectal ulcer. Techniques in Coloproctology. 2005;9(1):71–72. doi: 10.1007/s10151-005-0199-0
16. Hulsmans FJ, Tio TL, Reeders JW, et al. Transrectal US in the diagnosis of localized colitis cystica profunda. Radiology. 1991;181(1):201–203. doi: 10.1148/radiology.181.1.1887033
Review
For citations:
Pershina A.E., Trubacheva Yu.L., Veselov V.V., Biryukov O.M., Mainovskaya O.A. Ultrasound semiotics of solitary rectal ulcer. Koloproktologia. 2024;23(2):68-75. https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2024-23-2-68-75
Views:
487
Email this article 
