Ultrasound diagnostics of rectal intussusception
https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2025-24-2-104-111
Abstract
AIM: analysis of dynamic transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and dynamic transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) accuracy in rectal intussusception (RI) diagnosis.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: a prospective cohort single-center diagnostic accuracy study of ultrasound for RI detection (January 2023 — October 2024) included 151 patients with obstructive defecation syndrome, without signs of complete rectal prolapse and without history of surgical treatment for pelvic floor descent syndrome. All patients underwent dynamic TRUS, dynamic TPUS and X-ray defecography. Ultrasound results were compared with X-ray defecography data.
RESULTS: according to the X-ray defecography, RI was detected in 126/151 (83.4%) patients, according to dynamic TRUS — in 108/151 (71.5%), according to dynamic TPUS — in 110/151 (72.8%), according to complex dynamic ultrasound — in 124/151 (82.1%). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of dynamic TRUS in RI detection were 82.5% (95% confidence interval (CI): 74.8–88.7), 84.0% (95% CI: 63.9–95.5), 96.3% (95% CI: 90.8–99.0), 48.8% (95% CI: 33.3–64.5) and 82.8% (95% CI: 75.8–88.4), respectively, dynamic TPUS — 81.7% (95% CI: 73.9–88.1), 72.0% (95% CI: 50.6–87.9), 93.6% (95% CI: 87.3–97.4), 43.9% (95% CI: 28.5–60.3) and 80.1% (95% CI: 72.9–86.2), complex dynamic US — 92.1% (95% CI: 85.9–96.1), 68.0% (95% CI: 46.5–85.1), 93.6% (95% CI: 89.1–96.3), 63.0% (95% CI: 46.95–76.6) and 88.1% (95% CI: 81.8–92.8), no statistically significant differences were found.
CONCLUSION: ultrasound is a safe, highly sensitive method for RI detection in patients with obstructive defecation syndrome. Equivalent diagnostic accuracy of dynamic TRUS, dynamic TPUS and complex dynamic US allows using any available technique to detect RI. Complex dynamic US seems to be universal method for assessment the anatomical and functional state of rectum.
About the Authors
A. E. Pershina
Ryzhikh National Medical Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Anastasiya E. Pershina
Salyama Adilya st., 2, Moscow, 123423
Yu. L. Trubacheva
Ryzhikh National Medical Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Yuliya L. Trubacheva
Salyama Adilya st., 2, Moscow, 123423
O. M. Biryukov
Ryzhikh National Medical Research Center of Coloproctology
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Oleg M. Biryukov
Salyama Adilya st., 2, Moscow, 123423
References
1. Shelygin Yu.A., Achkasov S.I., Alyoshin D.V., et al. Rectal prolapse (62.2, 62.3), adults. Koloproktologia. 2024;23(3):10–22. (In Russ.). doi: 10.33878/2073-7556-2024-23-3-10-22
2. Blaker K, Anandam JL. Functional disorders: rectoanal intussusception. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2017;30(1):5–11. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1593433
3. de Vergie LC, Venara A, Duchalais E, et al. Internal rectal prolapse: Definition, assessment and management in 2016. J Visc Surg. 2017;154(1):21–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2016.10.004
4. Wijffels NA, Jones OM, Cunningham C, et al. What are the symptoms of internal rectal prolapse? Colorectal Dis. 2013;15(3):368–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-1318.2012.03183.x
5. Dvorkin LS, Knowles CH, Scott SM, et al. Rectal intussusception: characterization of symptomatology. Dis Colon Rectum. 2005;48(4):824–831. doi: 10.1007/s10350-004-0834-2
6. Vorobiev G.I. et al. Clinic and choice of method of treatment of internal “prolapse” of the rectum (intrarectal intussusception). Annaly khirurgii. 2000;6:34–39. (In Russ.).
7. Sadeghi A, Biglari M, Forootan M, et al. Solitary rectal ulcer syndrome: a narrative review. Middle East J Dig Dis. 2019;11(3):129–134. doi: 10.15171/mejdd.2019.138
8. Зароднюк И.В. Рентгенологическая дефекография в обследовании колопроктологических больных. Радиология–практика. 2004;2:26–30. / Zarodnyuk I.V. X-ray defecography in the examination of coloproctological patients. Radiology — practice. 2004;2:26–30. (In Russ.).
9. Palmer SL, Lalwani N, Bahrami S, et al. Dynamic fluoroscopic defecography: updates on rationale, technique, and interpretation from the Society of Abdominal radiology pelvic floor disease focus panel. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(4):1312–1322. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-02169-y
10. Perniola G, Shek C, Chong CC, et al. Defecation proctography and translabial ultrasound in the investigation of defecatory disorders. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol.2008;31(5):567–71. doi: 10.1002/uog.5337
11. Steensma AB, Oom DMJ, Burger CW, et al. Assessment of posterior compartment prolapse; a comparison of evacuation proctography and 3D transperineal ultrasound. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12:533–539.
12. Vitton V, Vignally P, Barthet M, et al. Dynamic anal endosonography and MRI defecography in diagnosis of pelvic floor disorders: comparison with conventional defecography. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(11):1398–1404. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31822e89bc
13. van Gruting IMA, Stankiewicz A, Kluivers K, et al. Accuracy of four imaging techniques for diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(5):1017–1024. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002245
14. Viscardi A, Ratto C, Parello A. Dynamic transperineal ultrasound in the workup of men with obstructed defecation: a pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012;55(9):976–982. doi: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31825ef8ec
15. Weemhoff M, Kluivers KB, Govaert B, et al. Transperineal ultrasound compared to evacuation proctography for diagnosing enteroceles and intussusceptions. Int J Colorectal Dis.2013;28(3):359–363. doi: 10.1007/s00384-012-1567-7
16. Murad-Regadas SM, Regadas FS, Rodrigues LV, et al. A novel three-dimensional dynamic anorectal ultrasonography technique (echodefecography) to assess obstructed defecation, a comparison with defecography. Surg Endosc. 2008;22(4):974–979. doi: 10.1007/s00464-007-9532-1
17. Regadas FS, Haas EM, Abbas MA, et al. Prospective multi-center trial comparing echodefecography with defecography in the assessment of anorectal dysfunction in patients with obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(6):686–692. doi: 10.1007/DCR.0b013e3182113ac7
18. Hainsworth AJ, Solanki D, Hamad A, et al. Integrated total pelvic floor ultrasound in pelvic floor defaecatory dysfunction. Colorectal Dis. 2017;19(1):O54-O65. doi: 10.1111/codi.13568
19. Pershina A.E., Trubacheva Yu.L., Veselov V.V., et al. Ultrasound semiotics of solitary rectal ulcer. Koloproktologia. 2024;23(2):68–75. (In Russ.). doi: 10.33878/2073-7556-2024-23-2-68-75
20. 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:s0016–5107(96)70067-6
21. Barthet M, Portier F, Heyries L, et al. Dynamic anal endosonography may challenge defecography for assessing dynamic anorectal disorders: results of a prospective pilot study. Endoscopy. 2000;32(4):300–305. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-7385
22. Brusciano L, Limongelli P, Pescatori M, et al. Ultrasonographic patterns in patients with obstructed defaecation. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2007;22(8):969–977. doi: 10.1007/s00384-006-0250-2
Review
For citations:
Pershina A.E., Trubacheva Yu.L., Biryukov O.M. Ultrasound diagnostics of rectal intussusception. Koloproktologia. 2025;24(2):104-111. https://doi.org/10.33878/2073-7556-2025-24-2-104-111
Views:
291
Email this article 
