Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

What is the optimum methodology for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure?
Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2005 Aug; 17(4):595-9.NM

Abstract

There are conflicting recommendations from consensus groups with regard to the assessment of resting anal sphincter pressure. Our aims were to evaluate and compare the performance of three recognized techniques for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure.

METHODS

In each of 54 patients presenting for anorectal manometry, and suffering from constipation or fecal incontinence, three different techniques for assessment of resting anal pressure were undertaken, namely stationary, stationary pull-through and slow pull-through techniques. Resting anal sphincter pressures were compared between groups and between techniques.

RESULTS

Mean resting anal sphincter pressure was lower with stationary, compared with stationary pull-through and slow pull-through, techniques (P < or = 0.002). Resting pressure was higher for constipation than incontinence regardless of technique used (P < 0.00001). The techniques were highly correlated with each other (P < 0.0001). The stationary pull-through technique conferred a minor advantage in the discrimination between constipation and incontinence. The stationary technique required significantly less time for completion (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Resting anal sphincter pressure varies according to the specific technique employed, yet each technique is valid. The stationary pull-through technique confers a minor advantage in clinical discrimination of patients, but the stationary technique is more time-efficient. Standardized anal sphincter testing should be established to enable inter-laboratory comparisons.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Gastrointestinal Investigation Unit, Royal North Shore Hospital and University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16078949

Citation

Prott, G, et al. "What Is the Optimum Methodology for the Clinical Measurement of Resting Anal Sphincter Pressure?" Neurogastroenterology and Motility : the Official Journal of the European Gastrointestinal Motility Society, vol. 17, no. 4, 2005, pp. 595-9.
Prott G, Hansen R, Badcock C, et al. What is the optimum methodology for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure? Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2005;17(4):595-9.
Prott, G., Hansen, R., Badcock, C., Kellow, J., & Malcolm, A. (2005). What is the optimum methodology for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure? Neurogastroenterology and Motility : the Official Journal of the European Gastrointestinal Motility Society, 17(4), 595-9.
Prott G, et al. What Is the Optimum Methodology for the Clinical Measurement of Resting Anal Sphincter Pressure. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2005;17(4):595-9. PubMed PMID: 16078949.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - What is the optimum methodology for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure? AU - Prott,G, AU - Hansen,R, AU - Badcock,C, AU - Kellow,J, AU - Malcolm,A, PY - 2005/8/5/pubmed PY - 2005/9/7/medline PY - 2005/8/5/entrez SP - 595 EP - 9 JF - Neurogastroenterology and motility : the official journal of the European Gastrointestinal Motility Society JO - Neurogastroenterol. Motil. VL - 17 IS - 4 N2 - UNLABELLED: There are conflicting recommendations from consensus groups with regard to the assessment of resting anal sphincter pressure. Our aims were to evaluate and compare the performance of three recognized techniques for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure. METHODS: In each of 54 patients presenting for anorectal manometry, and suffering from constipation or fecal incontinence, three different techniques for assessment of resting anal pressure were undertaken, namely stationary, stationary pull-through and slow pull-through techniques. Resting anal sphincter pressures were compared between groups and between techniques. RESULTS: Mean resting anal sphincter pressure was lower with stationary, compared with stationary pull-through and slow pull-through, techniques (P < or = 0.002). Resting pressure was higher for constipation than incontinence regardless of technique used (P < 0.00001). The techniques were highly correlated with each other (P < 0.0001). The stationary pull-through technique conferred a minor advantage in the discrimination between constipation and incontinence. The stationary technique required significantly less time for completion (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Resting anal sphincter pressure varies according to the specific technique employed, yet each technique is valid. The stationary pull-through technique confers a minor advantage in clinical discrimination of patients, but the stationary technique is more time-efficient. Standardized anal sphincter testing should be established to enable inter-laboratory comparisons. SN - 1350-1925 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16078949/What_is_the_optimum_methodology_for_the_clinical_measurement_of_resting_anal_sphincter_pressure L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2982.2005.00651.x DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -