Talk:Defecating proctogram

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.

The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

I don't know how much liberty was taken with this article. There is always the chance that everything I removed from this article is correct. However, it seemed more appropriate to remove certain things than use the "citation needed" tag. I removed the "Advanced Techniques" section. Nothing in this section was mentioned in the two references on this page. Things such as the "Abe Assist", involving inserting a finger into the rectum of difficult patients, or the "special caulk gun for weak-wristed operators", appear to be a hoax. If these things are in fact correct, please return them with the appropriate references, and accept my apologies. I also removed the image of the caulk gun that was claimed to be used for this purpose. I'm aware that this is a very real medical procedure, but I can find nothing to suggest a caulk gun in used. The caulk gun in the photo was resting on a desk in someone's home. Even if some type of medical caulk gun is used, I find it extremely unlikely that the household object shown in the picture is an acceptable example. I also put a "citation needed" tag next to the statement, "Many consider using MRI to be a huge waste of medical resources". This article certainly needs more work, preferrably from someone with knoweledge of this procedure. As far as the "notability" tag goes, I can affirm that this is a bona fide medical procedure, and is certainly worthy of an article. (Although I have very little idea as to Wikipedia's official standards for such.) But I would think that an expert's attention, combined with a bit of vigilance against juvenile toilet humor, this could be a useful article. Not knowing much about, or caring much for, the subject, I don't intend to do much more here. Again, my apologies if I have removed any factual information, or oversteped any boundries with my changes. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the Wikipedia guidelines for notability, I feel confident that this article, albeit of poor quality, meets the standards for inclusion. I have therefore removed the notability tag. Please feel free to correct me if this was not proper. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "it is now only performed at a few select institutions around the country". What country is this? crisluengo (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've removed it. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technique

Like Joefromrandb, I can't tell how much of this article is tongue-in-cheek. E.g. "Stool finale?" Really? I just copy-edited this thing and changed some words around: ″mandatory″→“critical”, “body habitus”→“physique”, but for the life of me I could not think of another word for “caulk gun.” I also removed the word “select” from “select institutions.” I agree with Joe that this article is a potential magnet for thirteen year old boys giddy with sleep deprivation and mountain dew. What it really needs is an expert.

Some questions regarding its veracity:

Why in the vagina with avoidance of the rectum? Isn't it the rectum that's meant to be imaged?
Is there a technical term for the “caulk gun” device?
Is the history accurate, and is it really the “gold standard”?
Is the medical jargon correct?

I would do more, but this is not my area of expertise. Forgive me if my edits had a deleterious effect on the article. Braincricket (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither my specialty, but I added 2 more reliable references. I think I can answer some of these Q's:

vagina has barium paste put in it as well so that a anterior rectocele will show up better.
According to ASCRS textbook: "High density, barium paste is introduced into the rectum. These come prepackaged in a caulking tube. This tube fits into a standard caulking gun." ... so I guess not
Whipworm is a cause of rectal prolapse, that's all I know. First known publication of the procedure is from this time too (that I am aware of) ^[1]

^ WALLDEN, L (1953 Feb). "Roentgen examination of the deep rectogenital pouch". Acta radiologica. 39 (2): 105–16. PMID 13040061. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Not sure we can say it is gold standard, with advent of non ionizing dynamic pelvic MRI. This is opinion anyway so I reworded it.
All terms seem ok to me, what were you specifically asking about? 23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} (talk) 17:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this page to defecography

I performed key word searches on google and pubmed, yielding the following number of results.

	google	Pubmed
"Defecating proctogram"	7860	5
Defecography	67,900	692
Proctography	15,200	823

Normally I would side with pubmed, but in this instance I note that proctography may refer to other investigations, so "defecography" appears to be the most notable name.23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] WALLDEN, L (1953 Feb). "Roentgen examination of the deep rectogenital pouch". Acta radiologica. 39 (2): 105–16. PMID 13040061. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[1]