Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Anal manometry: a comparison of techniques.
Dis Colon Rectum. 2006 Jul; 49(7):1033-8.DC

Abstract

PURPOSE

Methods of anal manometry vary between centers, resulting in potential difficulties in interpretation of results. This study compared several accepted manometric techniques in healthy control subjects and in patients with fecal incontinence.

METHODS

Eleven patients with fecal incontinence (M:F = 3:8; mean age = 67 years) and ten healthy control subjects (M:F = 3:7; mean age = 64 years) underwent anal manometry using five different methods: 1) water-perfused side hole; 2) water-perfused end hole; 3) microtransducer; 4) microballoon; 5) portable Peritron. Using a station pull-through technique, anal pressures (resting, squeeze, and cough pressures) were recorded at 1-cm intervals from rectum to anal verge, as well as radial pressures in four quadrants for Methods 1 and 2.

RESULTS

Water perfusion side hole recorded slightly higher maximal resting pressures; however, there were no significant differences between any of the methods. In healthy control subjects, distal maximal squeeze pressures were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than proximally as measured by microtransducer. There were slight (nonsignificant) variations in radial pressures with water perfusion and microtransducer. Peritron values for maximum resting pressure and maximum squeeze pressure were lower than those recorded by water perfusion side hole by a factor of 0.8.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant variation in anal pressure recordings using standard manometry techniques. Variations in radial pressures are slight and not significant in clinical studies. Results obtained with portable nonperfusion systems must be interpreted appropriately.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Surgery, Gosford Hospital, Gosford, New South Wales, 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

16729220

Citation

Simpson, Richard R., et al. "Anal Manometry: a Comparison of Techniques." Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, vol. 49, no. 7, 2006, pp. 1033-8.
Simpson RR, Kennedy ML, Nguyen MH, et al. Anal manometry: a comparison of techniques. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(7):1033-8.
Simpson, R. R., Kennedy, M. L., Nguyen, M. H., Dinning, P. G., & Lubowski, D. Z. (2006). Anal manometry: a comparison of techniques. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, 49(7), 1033-8.
Simpson RR, et al. Anal Manometry: a Comparison of Techniques. Dis Colon Rectum. 2006;49(7):1033-8. PubMed PMID: 16729220.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Anal manometry: a comparison of techniques. AU - Simpson,Richard R, AU - Kennedy,Michael L, AU - Nguyen,M Hung, AU - Dinning,Philip G, AU - Lubowski,David Z, PY - 2006/5/27/pubmed PY - 2006/10/18/medline PY - 2006/5/27/entrez SP - 1033 EP - 8 JF - Diseases of the colon and rectum JO - Dis Colon Rectum VL - 49 IS - 7 N2 - PURPOSE: Methods of anal manometry vary between centers, resulting in potential difficulties in interpretation of results. This study compared several accepted manometric techniques in healthy control subjects and in patients with fecal incontinence. METHODS: Eleven patients with fecal incontinence (M:F = 3:8; mean age = 67 years) and ten healthy control subjects (M:F = 3:7; mean age = 64 years) underwent anal manometry using five different methods: 1) water-perfused side hole; 2) water-perfused end hole; 3) microtransducer; 4) microballoon; 5) portable Peritron. Using a station pull-through technique, anal pressures (resting, squeeze, and cough pressures) were recorded at 1-cm intervals from rectum to anal verge, as well as radial pressures in four quadrants for Methods 1 and 2. RESULTS: Water perfusion side hole recorded slightly higher maximal resting pressures; however, there were no significant differences between any of the methods. In healthy control subjects, distal maximal squeeze pressures were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than proximally as measured by microtransducer. There were slight (nonsignificant) variations in radial pressures with water perfusion and microtransducer. Peritron values for maximum resting pressure and maximum squeeze pressure were lower than those recorded by water perfusion side hole by a factor of 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant variation in anal pressure recordings using standard manometry techniques. Variations in radial pressures are slight and not significant in clinical studies. Results obtained with portable nonperfusion systems must be interpreted appropriately. SN - 0012-3706 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16729220/Anal_manometry:_a_comparison_of_techniques_ L2 - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10350-006-0549-7 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -