暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium (PFDC) is a multidisciplinary organization of colorectal surgeons, urogynecologists, urologists, gynecologists, gastroenterologists, radiologists, physiotherapists, and other advanced care practitioners. Specialists from these fields are all dedicated to the diagnosis and management of patients with pelvic floor conditions, but they approach, evaluate, and treat such patients with their own unique perspectives given the differences in their respective training. The PFDC was formed to bridge gaps and enable collaboration between these specialties. The goal of the PFDC is to develop and evaluate educational programs, create clinical guidelines and algorithms, and promote high quality of care in this unique patient population. The recommendations included in this article represent the work of the PFDC Working Group on Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Pelvic Floor Disorders (members listed alphabetically in Table 1). The objective was to generate inclusive, rather than prescriptive, guidance for all practitioners, irrespective of discipline, involved in the evaluation and treatment of patients with pelvic floor disorders.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Chronic constipation is a common and extremely troublesome disorder that significantly reduces the quality of life, and this fact is consistent with the high rate at which health care is sought for this condition. The aim of this project was to develop a consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of chronic constipation and obstructed defecation. The commission presents its results in a \"Question-Answer\" format, including a set of graded recommendations based on a systematic review of the literature and evidence-based medicine. This section represents the consensus for the diagnosis. The history includes information relating to the onset and duration of symptoms and may reveal secondary causes of constipation. The presence of alarm symptoms and risk factors requires investigation. The physical examination should assess the presence of lesions in the anal and perianal region. The evidence does not support the routine use of blood testing and colonoscopy or barium enema for constipation. Various scoring systems are available to quantify the severity of constipation; the Constipation Severity Instrument for constipation and the obstructed defecation syndrome score for obstructed defecation are the most reliable. The Constipation-Related Quality of Life is an excellent tool for evaluating the patient\'s quality of life. No single test provides a pathophysiological basis for constipation. Colonic transit and anorectal manometry define the pathophysiologic subtypes. Balloon expulsion is a simple screening test for defecatory disorders, but it does not define the mechanisms. Defecography detects structural abnormalities and assesses functional parameters. Magnetic resonance imaging and/or pelvic floor sonography can further complement defecography by providing information on the movement of the pelvic floor and the organs that it supports. All these investigations are indicated to differentiate between slow transit constipation and obstructed defecation because the treatments differ between these conditions.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to establish the effects of additional diagnostic tests compared to a consensus outcome on treatment selection in primary pelvic organ prolapse.
METHODS: Three expert gynecologists individually defined a management plan in 53 patients after magnetic resonance imaging, defecography, urodynamic, and anorectal function test information was provided. These management plans were compared with basic treatment advices in the absence of any test and with consensus advices (opinion-based references). The experts assigned a subjective score (assigned diagnostic value [ADV], 0-100%) to rate the test\'s relative importance.
RESULTS: On average, additional diagnostic testing resulted in a revised initial management plan in 38% of the cases; 24% of the individual management plans did not meet the consensus reference. Overall defecography was regarded most valuable (ADV range 19-65%) vs. magnetic resonance imaging rated least (ADV range 0-37%).
CONCLUSIONS: Although additional diagnostic tests frequently led to adaptations of basic treatment proposals, consensus was not reached in a fourth of the cases.

The Latin-American Consensus on Chronic Constipation aimed to establish guidelines to improve the identification, diagnosis and treatment of this disorder in the region. Two coordinators and an honorary coordinator established the process and the topics to be discussed, based on a systematic review of the literature published in the previous 10 years, since 1995. Seventeen members participated with the support of their local gastroenterology societies. The members reviewed the different subjects based on the levels of evidence and grades of recommendation; the topics were then discussed in a plenary session. A written report was drafted and the coordinators prepared the final declarations to be submitted to a vote by all the members in October 2006. The consensus concluded that chronic constipation has an estimated prevalence of 5-21% in the region, with a female-to-male ratio of 3:1. Among individuals with constipation, 75% use some type of medication, with more than 50% using home remedies. A diagnosis based on Rome Criteria was recommended and diagnostic testing only in persons older than 50 years or with alarm symptoms. The use of barium enema as an initial investigation was recommended only in countries with a high prevalence of idiopathic megacolon or Chagas\' disease. Recommendations on treatment included an increase in dietary fiber of up to 25-30 g/day (grade C). No evidence was found to recommend measures such as exercise, increased water intake, or frequent visits to the toilet. Fiber supplements such as Psyllium received a grade B and pharmacological treatments such as tegaserod and polyethylene glycol, both grade A. There was insufficient evidence to recommend lactulose, but the consensus did not disadvise its use when necessary. Complementary investigations such as colonic transit followed by anorectal manometry and defecography were only recommended to rule out colonic inertia and/or obstructive defecation in patients not responding to treatment. Biofeedback was recommended (grade B) for those with pelvic dyssynergia.