Intrastomal 3D ultrasound; An inter- and intra-observer evaluation

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 43-47

  Strigard K ^a,d   Gurmu, A ^a   Nasvall P ^b   Pahlman P ^c   Gunnarsson, U ^a  

^a KAROLINSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^c UPPSALA UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^d UMEÅ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

3D ultrasound; Evaluation; Interobserver; Intraobserver; Intrastomal

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE DISPLAY; IMAGE PROCESSING; KAPPA STATISTICS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PARASTOMAL HERNIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; ULTRASOUND;

COHORT STUDIES; COLOSTOMY; HERNIA, ABDOMINAL; HUMANS; ILEOSTOMY; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LEARNING CURVE; OBSERVER VARIATION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SURGICAL STOMAS;

EID: 84872598159     PISSN: 01791958     EISSN: 14321262     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-012-1526-3     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Cingi A, Cakir T, Sever A, Aktan AO (2006) Enterostomy site hernias: a clinical and computerized tomographic evaluation. Dis Colon Rectum 49:1559-1563
2. Londono-Schimmer EE, Leong AP, Phillips RK (1994) Life table analysis of stomal complications following colostomy. Dis Colon Rectum 37:916-20
3. Moreno-Matias J, Serra-Aracil X, Darnell-Martin A, Bombardo-Junca J, Mora-Lopez L, Alcantara-Moral P, Ayguavives-Garnica I, Navarro-Soto S (2009) The prevalence of parastomal hernia after formation of an end colostomy. A new clinico-radiological classification. Color Dis 11:173-177
4. Gurmu A, Matthissen P, Nilsson S, Påhlman L, Rutegård J, Gunnarsson U (2011) The inter-observer reliability is very low at clinical examination of parastomal hernia. Int J Colorect Dis 26:89-95
5. Gurmu A, Gunnarsson U, Strigård K (2011) Imaging of parastomal hernia using three-dimensional intrastomal ultrasonography. Br J Surg 98:1026-9
6. Fleiss JL (1971) Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull 76(5):378-382
7. Santoro GA, Fortling B (2007) The advantages of volume rendering in three-dimensional endosonography of the anorectum. Dis Colon Rectum 50(3):359-368
8. Schaffzin DM, Wong WD (2004) Endorectal ultrasound in the preoperative evaluation of rectal cancer. Clin Colorectal Cancer 4:124-132
9. Olsen IP, Augensen K, Wilsgaard T, Kiserud T (2008) Three-dimensional endoanal ultrasound assessment of the anal sphincters: reproducibility. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 87:675-681
10. Christensen AF, Nyhuus B, Nielsen MB (2009) Interobserver and intraobserver variation of two-dimensional and three-dimensional anal endosonography in the evaluation of recurrent anal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 52:484-488
11. Cheong KB, Leung KY, Li TK, Chan HY, Lee YP, Tang MH (2010) Comparison of inter- and intraobserver agreement and reliability between three different types of placental volume measurement technique (XI VOCAL, VOCAL and multiplanar) and validity in the in-vitro setting. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36:210-217
12. Felt-Bersma RJ, Cazemier M (2006) Endosonography in anorectal disease: an overview. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 243:165-74, Review
13. Burtin P, Rabot AF, Heresbach D, Carpentier S, Rousselet MC, Le Berre N, Boyer J (1997) Interobserver agreement in the staging of rectal cancer using endoscopic ultrasonography. Endosc 29:620-5
14. Roubein LD, Lynch P, Glober G, Sinicrope FA (1996) Interobserver variability in endoscopic ultrasonography: a prospective evaluation. Gastrointest Endosc 44:573-7