Actualización con la clasificación de Londres en la interpretación de la manometría anorrectal de alta resolución / Update of high-resolution anorectal manometry interpretation using the London classification

Resumen La manometría anorrectal de alta resolución es una prueba diagnóstica utilizada para los trastornos motores y sensitivos anorrectales. Consta de una medición del tono basal y de contracción anal; también valora la maniobra de pujo, reflejo rectoanal inhibitorio (RIAR) y parámetros sensitivos rectales. La interpretación convencional de la manometría anorrectal se enfoca en describir aisladamente la región anatómica disfuncional. Sin embargo, con la clasificación de Londres se busca estandarizar el informe de estos resultados, agrupándolos en trastornos mayores, menores y hallazgos no concluyentes, similar a la clasificación de Chicago para trastornos motores esofágicos.

Abstract High resolution anorectal manometry is a diagnostic test, used for anorectal motor and sensory disorders. It consists of measurement of basal tone, anal contraction and squeeze, the rectoanal inhibitory reflex (RAIR), and rectal sensory parameters. The conventional interpretation of anorectal manometry focuses on describing the dysfunctional anatomical region in isolation. However, the London classification seeks to standardize the report of these results, grouping them into major, minor and inconclusive findings in a manner similar to the Chicago classification for esophageal motor disorders.

Anorectal Manometry Versus Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as a Predictor of Maximal Treatment for Fecal Incontinence

PURPOSE: This study aims to establish the ability of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and anorectal manometry (ARM) in predicting the need for surgery in patients with fecal incontinence (FI).METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, PROMs data, including the Birmingham Bowel and Urinary Symptoms Questionnaire (BBUSQ), Short Form 36 (SF-36), Wexner Incontinence Score and ARM results, were prospectively collected from 276 patients presenting with FI. Spearman rank was used to assess correlations between specific PROMs questions and ARM assessments of sphincter motor function. Binomial regression analyses were performed to identify factors predictive of the need for surgery. Finally, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were performed to establish the utility of individual ARM and PROMs variables in predicting the need for surgical intervention in patients with FI.RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-eight patients (82.60%) were treated conservatively while 48 (17.39%) underwent surgery. On univariate analyses, all 4 domains of the BBUSQ, all 8 domains of the SF-36, and the Wexner Incontinence Score were significant predictors of surgery. Additionally, maximum resting pressure, 5-second squeeze endurance, threshold volume, and urge volume were significant. On ROC curve analyses, the only significant ARM measurement was the 5-second squeeze endurance. PROMs, such as the incontinence domain of the BBUSQ and five of the SF-36 domains, were identified as fair discriminators of the need for surgery.CONCLUSION: PROMs are reliable predictors of maximal treatment in patients with FI and can be readily used in primary care to aid surgical referrals and can be applied in hospital settings as an aid to guide surgical treatment decisions.

Defective Conduction of Anorectal Afferents Is a Very Prevalent Pathophysiological Factor Associated to Fecal Incontinence in Women

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Fecal incontinence (FI) is a prevalent condition among women. While biomechanical motor components have been thoroughly researched, anorectal sensory aspects are less known. We studied the pathophysiology of FI in community-dwelling women, specifically, the conduction through efferent/afferent neural pathways. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on 175 women with FI and 19 healthy volunteers. The functional/structural study included anorectal manometry/endoanal ultrasound. Neurophysiological studies including pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML) and sensory-evoked-potentials to anal/rectal stimulation (ASEP/RSEP) were conducted on all healthy volunteers and on 2 subgroups of 42 and 38 patients, respectively. RESULTS: The main conditions associated with FI were childbirth (79.00%) and coloproctological surgery (37.10%). Cleveland score was 11.39 ± 4.09. Anorectal manometry showed external anal sphincter and internal anal sphincter insufficiency in 82.85% and 44.00%, respectively. Sensitivity to rectal distension was impaired in 27.42%. Endoanal ultrasound showed tears in external anal sphincter (60.57%) and internal anal sphincter disruptions (34.80%). Abnormal anorectal sensory conduction was evidenced through ASEP and RSEP in 63.16% and 50.00% of patients, respectively, alongside reduced activation of brain cortex to anorectal stimulation. In contrast, PNTML was delayed in only 33.30%. Stools were loose/very loose in 56.70% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Pathophysiology of FI in women is mainly associated with mechanical sphincter dysfunctions related to either muscle damage or, to a lesser extent, impaired efferent conduction at pudendal nerves. Impaired conduction through afferent anorectal pathways is also very prevalent in women with FI and may play an important role as a pathophysiological factor and as a potential therapeutic target.

The Role of Anorectal Physiology Tests in Ulcerative Colitis; Challenging 3 Cases.

Benign functional anorectal disorders such as faecal incontinence or constipation can be concomitant issues in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) whether the main disease is under control or not and they lead to negative impact on patients’ quality of life. However, reports regarding these anorectal disorders and anorectal physiologic features in patients with IBD are rare and routine diagnostic tests and therapeutic options for these pelvic floor disorders reported by IBD patients are often underused. Anorectal physiology tests are important in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases, to better diagnose any symptomatic and concomitant anorectal functional disorders in order to avoid unnecessary medical or surgical therapies and to tailor the most suitable treatment modalities for the patients. Three challenging patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) under deep remission but having different defecatory and functional bowel problems are summarized here, under the guidance of specific anorectal physiology tests.

Anorectal Physiology: Test and Clinical Application

The physiology of the anorectal region is very complex, and it is only recently that detailed investigations have given us a better understanding of its function. The methods that are used for the evaluation of anorectal physiology include anorectal manometry, defecography, continence tests, electromyography of the anal sphincter and the pelvic floor, and nerve stimulation tests. These techniques furnish a clearer picture of the mechanisms of anorectal disease and demonstrate pathophysiologic abnormalities in patients with disorders of the anorectal region. Therefore, therapeutic recommendations for anorectal disease can be made best when the anatomy and the physiology of the anorectal region are understood.

Diagnosis and Management of Functional Evacuation Disorders

Over the last decade, anorectal physiologic investigations have emerged as a useful adjunct for patients with functional evacuation disorders. Through application of new sophisticated techniques and armamentarium, it has been possible to find more specific aspects of the colorectal function in patients with refractory defecation disorders. There are three groups of patient's with constipating symptoms. These patients have obstructed defecation, slow transit constipation, or a combination of both. Slow transit constipation is a severe disorder of colonic motility presenting predominantly in women. Obstructed defecation is a clinical problem frequently thought to be due to functional abnormalities of the pelvic floor leading to outlet obstruction. Defecation is an integrated process of colonic and rectal emptying, and has led to the realization that obstructed defecation is more complex than just a simple disorder of the pelvic floor muscles. Anorectal manometry establishes a quantitative measure of the pressure generated by the anal sphincters. Defecography is used to diagnose a variety of anatomical abnormalities of the rectum, including rectocele and intussusception. Tests of motor and sensory conduction in the pudendal nerves may indicate nerve damage, which accompanies chronic straining at stool. Colonic transit is an important variable and should always be considered in the assessment of patients with pelvic floor abnormalities, and measurement of colon transit by radioopaque markers or radioisotope techniques is an essential part of the workup of these patients. For the great majority of patients, dietary adjustment with increased fiber and liquid supplement can resolve these symptoms. Patients with slow transit colon can be expected to have a satisfactory outcome from colectomy and ileorectal anastomosis, but it is now appreciated that these patients form only a small proportion of those with chronic idiopathic constipation. Current management strategies for patients with obstructed defecation should be based on carefully identifying the underlying pathophysiological disorder and the use of conservative nonsurgical methods, including pelvic floor retraining (biofeedback) where appropriate. Surgical intervention should be limited to the very few patients with identifiable, surgically correctable causes of outlet obstruction.

Biofeedback Therapy in Patients with Functional Evacuation Disorders

Biofeedback therapy has emerged as a useful adjunct for patients with functional evacuation disorders over the past decade. The goals of biofeedback retraining may vary and could depend on the underlying dysfunction. In patients with obstructive defecation, the goals are to relax the anal sphincter, improve rectoanal coordination, and improve sensory perception. Methods of biofeedback therapy varied widely between centers. However, no difference was described when EMG-based biofeedback was compared to manometry-based biofeedback, or when visual or auditory feedback was given. In regards to biofeedback adjuncts, including sensory retraining with either an intrarectal balloon, a portable home-training unit or both can be practicable. There are inconsistencies in the literature regarding the patient selection criteria for biofeedback treatment. The patient group is not homogeneous. Different case selection, different regimens and different methods of biofeedback may explain the variability in success rate. Quality research that would assist in predicting outcome is still lacking. Although no specific denominator could possibly be assigned to correctly predict the overall outcome of therapy, biofeedback is not successful in all patients with outlet obstructed constipation. Results with success rates is ranging from 8.3 percent to 100 percent. The treatment of constipation by biofeedback has been viewed with some skepticism as the low success rate may simply be a placebo effect. The majority of scepticism to therapeutic outcome are derived from entry criteria for treatment. Lower success rates have been described when entry criteria were broadened. Prebiofeedback clinical findings which are presupposed to prognostic relevance are age, gender, duration of symptoms and presence of rectal pain, lower motor neuron disease, and psychiatric problems. I feel strongly that informations about the predictive factors are vital to all physicians either performing or recommending biofeedback to their patients. If biofeedback could be undertaken according to specific criteria, we, colorectal surgeon will save a fruitless endeavour, one would expect more improvements in more patients. Additional well-designed controlled trials are needed to establish the clinical and physiologic factors.

Functional Investigation with Use of Anorectal Physiology in the Patients with Fecal Incontinence

BACKGROUND: A large amount of attention in anorectal physiologic studies has been devoted to the diagnosis of fecal incontinence. The current study was designed firstly to assess the physiologic characteristics of fecal incontinence and secondly to analyze how the physiologic findings correlate with each other. METHODS: The physiologic findings of 47 patients (24 men and 23 women) were analyzed, retrospectively. Studies included anal manometry (n=38), anal electromyography/pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML) (n=30), and endoanal ultrasound (n=37). The degrees of continence were estimated by using continence grading scores (CGS) that ranged from 0 to 20 points based on the type and the frequency of incontinence. Control data were obtained from volunteers (n=23). RESULTS: The patients were categorized as having neurogenic (group I, n=25) or myogenic (group II, n=17) incontinence. Despite intensive investigations, unknown etiology was noted in 5 patients (10.4%). The CGS was not different between groups I and II. Pudendal neuropathy was found in 96% of group I and 37.5% of group II patients. Group I showed a higher value of PNTML than that of group II (2.96 1.0 msec vs. 2.07 0.48 msec, p=0.003). The CGS was proportional to the value of the PNTML in group I (r=0.476, p=0.01). However, no correlation was found between the mean PNTML and the CGS in group II. In the manometric parameters, there were no statistical differences between the values of the mean resting pressure (RP), the maximum RP, and the maximum voluntary contraction (MVC) between groups I and II. The MVC was inversely proportional to the CGS in group I (r= 0.616, p=0.02) and in group II (r= 0.664, p=0.02). No correlation was found between the PNTML and the manometric parameters. When we consider the presence of a defect or a scar as an abnormal anal ultrasound finding, such findings were more frequent in group II than in group I (group I, 20% vs. group II, 88%, p<0.001, Fisher's exact test). CONCLUSIONS: The value of the PNTML had relevance to the degree of symptoms in the patients with neurogenic incontinence. Specifically, the squeeze profiles of the manometric parameters were inversely related to the grade of incontinence. No correlation between the PNTML and the manometric parameters could be independently specified based on the etiology. Complementary examination by using the PNTML and anal ultrasound provided the only useful information to discriminate the etiology of incontinence.

Anorectal Physiology in the Rectal Prolapse Patient

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the physiological spectrum of anorectal dysfunction among patients with full thickness circunferential rectal prolapse. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between January 1988 and March 1995, 88 patients who visited department colorectal surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida with rectal prolapse were studied. There were 8 males and 80 females, with a mean age 69 (range 28~101) years. Patients underwent a detailed history and the following anorectal physiology tests were performed: anal canal manometry, pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML) assessment, anal electromyography and cinedefecography.4 standard continence scoring system, based on the frequency and type of incontinence (0=full continence, 20=complete incontinence) was used. Patients with rectal prolapse (n=88) were divided into two subgroups: Group I=continent patients (n=33) and Group II= incontinent patients (n=55). RESULTS: There were statistically significant differences between each group when comparing mean resting pressures, anal pressures, anal canal length, rectal compliance, rectoanal inhibitory reflex, increased fiber density, the occurrence of premature evacuation (p0.05) between groups. CONCLUSION: Continence may be disturbed in patients with rectal prolapse; knowledge of impairment in continence may assist in surgical management.