ABSTRACT
【Objective】 To study the diagnostic value of balloon expulsion test, anorectal manometry, and colonic transit test for detecting constipation with defecation disorders. 【Methods】 Outpatients with functional constipation were retrospectively analyzed and classified into dyssynergic defecation constipation and non-dyssynergic defecation constipation according to the Rome Ⅳ diagnostic criteria. We studied the differences in symptomatological characteristics and results of the three testing methods between the two groups of patients. 【Results】 Among the 48 patients with functional constipation included, there were 13 males (27.1%) and 35 females (72.9%) with an age of (44.8±12.3) years, including 32 patients (66.7%) with defecation disorder and 16 patients (33.3%) with non-defecation disorder. The percentage of anal distension was significantly higher in patients with dyssynergic defecation constipation than in those with non-dyssynergic defecation constipation (34.4% vs. 0.0%, P=0.021). All the three tests had diagnostic value for dyssynergic defecation constipation, but with low diagnostic agreement between the results of each test. The diagnostic sensitivity of anorectal manometry was 100%, but the specificity (56.3%) was low, and both the positive predictive value (82.1%) and the negative predictive value (100%) were higher; the diagnostic sensitivity (75.0%) and specificity (81.3%) of the balloon expulsion test were both higher. The Youden index of colonic transit test was the smallest. The anal resting pressure and maximum systolic pressure of dyssynergic defecation constipation were lower than those of non-dyssynergic defecation constipation (75.2 mmHg vs. 97.1 mmHg, 168.7 mmHg vs. 251.6 mmHg). The two types of constipation did not significantly differ in anorectal pressure gradients during simulated defecation or rectal sensory function. 【Conclusion】 The balloon expulsion test can be used as a primary screening test for constipation with defecation disorders, and anorectal manometry has the highest comprehensive diagnostic value, but there is a certain false positive rate, and the colonic transit test has the lowest diagnostic efficacy. Thus a comprehensive analysis of the patient’s symptoms and the results of different tests is needed in clinical practice.
ABSTRACT
Objective:To compare the results of high-resolution colonic manometry (HRCM) in patients with four subtypes of constipation: slow transit constipation(STC), outlet obstruction constipation (OOC), mixed STC and OOC, and normal transit constipation(NTC), and to explore the intestinal motility characteristics of patients with different subtypes of constipation.Methods:From 20th January 2017 to 20th September 2020, the HRCM results of 225 patients with functional constipation who visited the Department of Anorectal Surgery of Tianjin Union Medical Center were retrospectively analyzed. According to the results of colonic transit test, 225 patients were divided into STC group (108 cases), OOC group (36 cases), mixed group (28 cases) and NTC group (53 cases). General information such as Wexner constipation scores, clinical symptoms (decreased desire to defecate, sensation of anorectal blockage, hand-assisted defecation, spontaneous bowel movements frequency<3 times per week), the incidence, frequency within one day (hereinafter referred to as frequency), average velocity, average wave amplitude, average duration of contraction, average length of contraction, and the dynamic index (DI) of average pressure of high-amplitude propagating contraction (HAPC), as well as the frequency, average wave amplitude, average duration of contraction, and the DI of average pressure of low-amplitude propagating contraction (LAPC) were compared among the four groups. One-way ANOVA and multiple comparison, Kruskal-Wallis test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis.Results:The Wexner constipation scores of the STC, OOC, mixed and NTC group were 13.17±4.04, 13.97±4.55, 11.36±4.03 and 11.58±4.06, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant ( F=3.879, P<0.05). The Wexner consipation scores of the STC and OOC group were both higher than the mixed and NTC group, and the difference were statistically significant (One-way ANOVA and multiple comparison, all P<0.05). The proportion of decreased desire to defecate, sensation of anorectal blockage, hand-assisted defecation, spontaneous bowel movements frequency<3 times per week of STC, OOC, mixed and NTC group were 47.2% (51/108), 36.1% (13/36), 14.3% (4/28), 20.8% (11/53); 42.6% (46/108), 75.0% (27/36), 46.4% (13/28), 64.2% (34/ 53); 31.5% (34/108), 38.9% (14/36), 3.6% (1/28), 18.9% (10/53); 90.7% (98/108), 77.8% (28/36), 82.1% (23/28) and 62.3% (33/53), and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=17.093, 12.463, 13.437 and 18.927; all P<0.01). The proportion of decreased desire to defecate of STC group was higher than that of mixed and NTC group, and spontaneous bowel movements frequency<3 times per week was higher than that of OOC and NTC group, and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=10.014, 10.518, 4.418 and 19.016; all P<0.05). The proportion of sensation of anorectal blockage of OOC group was higher than that of STC and mixed group, and the proportion of hand-assisted defecation was higher than that of the mixed and NTC group, and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2= 9.511, 5.486, 10.948 and 4.363, all P<0.05). The incidence of HAPC in STC, OOC, mixed and NTC groups was 39.8% (43/108), 36.1% (13/36), 57.1% (16/28), and 60.4% (32/53), respectively, and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=8.880, P=0.031). The incidence of HAPC in STC group and OOC group were lower than that of NTC group, and the differences were statistically significant ( χ2=6.041 and 5.050, P=0.014 and 0.025). There were no statistically significant difference in the frequency, average velocity, average amplitude, average duration of contraction, average length of contraction and DI of pressure of HAPC in four groups, and there were no statistically significant difference in the frequency, average amplitude, average duration of contraction, and DI of pressure of LAPC in the four groups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:Doctors can more clearly and objectively observe the intestinal motility characteristics of patients with different subtypes of constipation through HRCM. HRCM provides a strong basis for the diagnosis and further treatment of functional constipation, and has a high clinical application value.
ABSTRACT
Objective To analyse the cause of constipation and evaluate the diagnostic value of colonic transit test and defecography for constipation diagnosis. Methods 110 cases with constipation were studied with colonic transit test and defecography. Results Abnormal colonic transit in 79 cases and defecography in 53 cases, overpassing the integrated analysis for the result of colonic transit test and defecography, the 40 cases were colonic inertia and 53 cases were function outlet obstruction. Conclusion The associated application of colonic transit test and defecography could be more accurate to differentiate constipations which are colonic inertia or function outlet obstruction and more specific the pathogeny of function outlet obstruction, to offer reliable foundation for the clinical cure.
ABSTRACT
In order to assess colonic motility of chronic constipation, colonic transit test was carried out in 34 patients with chronic constipation and in 20 healthy subjects. 20 radiopaque markers are ingested at 8 am before the day test, and plain abdominal films were obtained at 24 h, 48 h and 72 h. The normal value of colonic transit test was 16(80%), or more markers passed after 72 h. By means of transit time study, 34 constipated patients were classified into 2 groups: 12 normal transit patients and 22 slow transit patients. There was no difference in colonic transit time between normal transit patients and controls (P＞0.05). Patients with slow transit had more markers left in right colon, left colon and rectosigmoid colon at 48 h (P＜0.01, respectively) and 72 h (P＜0.01, respectively). According to the transit index, 22 slow transit patients were divided into 3 types: 10 cases colonic stasis, 8 cases outlet obstruction and 4 cases colorectal stasis. The study suggests that chronic constipated patients have abnormalbilities of colonic transit.
ABSTRACT
Objective:Discuss the etiology of constipation;evaluate the accuracy and clinical significance of iconography in diagnosis of constipation based on colonic transit test and defecography.Methods:183 patients who had been diagnosed with constipation underwent colonic transit test.Patients who were considered outlet obstruction were further examined by defecography.Diagnosis was made according to the measurement standard established by Professor Gong Shuigen,and retrospective analysis was performed.Results:A total of 169 patients showed abnormal colonic transit.36 had actual slow-transit constipation;49 had pseudo-slow-transit constipation;and 127 had out-let obstructive constipation,among those 43 were accompanied with slow-transit constipation.Conclusion:Colonic transit test combined with defecography is the optimal,simple and noninvasive diagnostic method for constipation.The static and dynamic observation of colonic transit motility and the imaging manifestation of physiolog-ical process of defecation,especially the combination of both,enable us to further elucidate the etiology of constipation caused by slow colonic transit and functional outlet obstruction,and facilitate clinicians to design the most effective treatment.This method is significantly more advanced than the conventional barium enema technique and fiberocolonoscopy and has become the irreplaceable diagnostic method for constipation.