Role of Anorectal Physiologic Studies for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Non- relaxing Puborectalis Syndrome

PURPOSE: To assess the effectiveness of cinedefecography (CD), anal electromyography (EMG), and anal manometry (ARM) for the diagnosis of non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome (NRPR) and to compare the outcomes for patients after biofeedback therapy (BF). METHODS: The clinical criteria used in this study for NRPR included straining, incomplete evacuation, tenesmus, and the need for enemas, suppositories, or digitation. Patients who satisfied the clinical criteria were evaluated by use of anorectal physiology tests: CD, EMG, and ARM. The EMG criteria included failure to achieve a significant decrease in the electrical activity of the puborectalis (PR) during attempted evacuation. The ARM criteria included failure to achieve a significant decrease in intra-anal pressure during attempted evacuation. The CD criteria included either paradoxical contraction or failure of the PR to relax together with incomplete evacuation. Other possible etiologies for incomplete evacuation, such as rectal intussusception or rectocele, were excluded in all cases. Fifty-eight constipated patients diagnosed as having NRPR by at least one of anorectal physiolosic tests had more than one BF session. The outcomes for fifty-one patients (mean age, 44.8 years; male-to-female ratio, 22:29) were reported as either improved or unimproved at a mean follow-up of 12.7 (range, 2~30) months. The sensitivities, the specificities, and the positive and negative predictive values for the CD, EMG, and ARM diagnoses of NRPR were calculated to assess the diagnostic accuracy of each test and to identify predictors associated with the outcome of BF. RESULTS: The sensitivities of EMG, CD, and ARM were 96%, 89%, and 85%, respectively (P>0.05). The positive predictive values of the three tests were 63% for EMG, 52% for ARM, and 51% for CD (P>0.05). The negative predictive values of the three tests were 90% for EMG, 43% for ARM, and 25% for CD (P0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A combination of the CD and the EMG tests is suggested for the diagnosis of NRPR.

Outcome and Prognostic Factors Associated with Poor Outcome of Biofeedback Therapy for Constipated Patients with Non- relaxing Puborectalis Syndrome

PURPOSE: Biofeedback is a major treatment method for constipated patients with non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome. However a significant percent of patients still showed poor outcome, and little has been known about the predictors associated with outcome of biofeedback. The aim of this study was to determine the outcome and identify predictors associated with poor outcome of biofeedback therapy for constipated patients with non- relaxing puborectalis syndrome. METHODS: Fifty-two constipated patients with non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome (median age, 47 years) who had more than one biofeedback session after defecography were evaluated by standardized questionnaire, before, immediately after treatment, and at follow-up. Clinical bowel symptoms and anorectal physiological studies were analyzed. Any differences in demographics, clinical symptoms, and parameters of anorectal physiological study were evaluated between success group (patients felt improvement in symptoms at follow-up) and failure group (patients felt no improvement). RESULTS: Follow up (mean follow-up; 17 months) results were evaluated by an independent observer in 45 patients. At post-biofeedback, 42 (81 percents) patients felt improvement in symptoms, including 7 (13 percents) with complete symptom relief. At follow-up, 25 (56 percents) patients felt improvement in symptoms, including 1 (2 percents) with complete symptom relief. There was a significant reduction in difficult defecation (from 81 to 44, 53 percent, from pre-biofeedback to post-biofeedback, and at follow up respectively; P<0.005, P<0.01), sensation of incomplete defecation (from 90 to 50, 40 percent; P< 0.00001, P<0.000005), laxative use (from 25 to 10, 11 percent; P<0.05), and enema use (from 13 to 0, 2 percent; P<0.01, P<0.05). Normal spontaneous bowel movement was increased from 42 percent pre-biofeedback to 81 percent post-biofeedback (P<0.0001), 80 percent at follow up (P<0.0005). Pre-biofeedback presence of symptoms of bowel habit change predict poor outcome (15 vs. 0 percent; failure vs. success, P<0.05). High pressure zone in prebiofeedback manometry was longer in failure group than in success group (2.80 vs 2.01 cm, P<0.05). In the success group, 11 (44 percent) had a rectocele, 1 (4 percent) had a rectal intussussception, 18 (72 percent) had a descending perineal syndrome, and 3 (12 percent) had a sigmoidocele. In the failure group, 4 (20 percent) had a rectocele, and 1 (5 percent) had a rectal intussusception, 14 (70 percent) had a descending perineal syndrome, and a sigmoidocele was not accompanied (P<0.05). Accompanied rectocele, rectal intussusception, descending perineal syndrome, and sigmoidocele did not influence outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback is an effective option and should be considered as the first line therapy. Bowel habit change and long high pressure zone in pre-biofeedback manometry were predictors associated with poor outcome of biofeedback therapy for constipated patients with non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome.

A Role of Anorectal Physiologic Study for the Diagnosis of Chronic Constipation

To assess the role of anorectal physiologic study for the diagnosis of chronic idiopathic constipation. METHODS: A retrospective study of 81 constipated patients (23 male, 58 female) of mean age 48 16.6 (16~83) years who had no abnormalities in colonoscopy, barium enema, and rectal exam was done. 81 patients underwent defecography and cine-defecography, of which 66 patients underwent anal manometry, 52 patients underwent colonic transit time study (CTT), and 27 patients underwent anal plug electromyography (EMG). RESULTS: Nonrelaxing puborectalis syndrome (NRPR), rectocele, rectal intussusception, anal dyschezia, and sigmoidocele were observed in 27 (33.3%), 26 (32.1%), 14 (17.3%), 3 (3.7%), and 2 (2.5%) of the patients, respectively. Normal cinedefecography finding was observed in 21 (25.9%) patients. More than one abnormal finding was found in 11 (13.6%) patients. Abnormal findings included colonic inertia in 6 (11.5%) patients and pelvic outlet obstruction in 2 (3.8%) patients. Normal colon transit time was observed in 44 (84.6%) patients. Anal hypertonia was observed in 23 (34.8%) patients by anal monometry, of which 3 patients were diagnosed with anal dyschezia in cinedefecography. 13 (48.1%) patients were diagnosed with NRPR in anal plug EMG. The correlation rate between cinedefecography/EMG, defecography/CTT, and CTT/EMG were 81.5%, 61.5%, and 51.9% respectively in the diagnosis of NRPR. Sensitivities of the three tests were 72.7% for cinedefecography, 66.7% for EMG, and 7.7% for CTT in diagnosing NRPR (p<0.05). Positive predictive values of the three tests were 80% for anal plug EMG, 72.7% for cinedefecography, and 50% for CTT in the diagnosis of NRPR. CONCLUSIONS: Defecography and EMG were complements each of the other in diagnosis of pelvic outlet obstruction especially NRPR, but CTT has no role.

Association between Poor Bowel Habit and Non-Relaxing Puborectalis Syndrome

PURPOSE: Constipation in children usually is due to poor bowel habit. Ignoring the urge to have a bowel movements initiates a viscious cycle of constipation. After a period of time children may stop feeling the urge, leading to fecal impaction. This leads to loss of anorectal reflex. What is the outcome of the children with long-standing poor bowel habit? METHODS: Forty-two patients with obstructed defecation (non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome) diagnosed by defecogram and anorectal manometry were investigated with rectal sensation and elasticity studies (threshold of sense: TS, defecation sensation volume: DS, maximal tolerable volume: MTV, rectal compliance: RC), and colon transit time (CTT). All detailed questionnaires on the subject were completed. Eighteen patients (11F: 7M, mean age 39 years, range 16~75) with history of poor bowel habits since childhood were compared with 24 (16F: 8M, mean age 40 years, range 16~31) with no history of poor bowel habit. RESULTS: Studies of colonic transit time demonstrated no significant difference in the right and left colon between two groups, but the rectosigmoid transit time in the poor bowel habits group was more increased than in the normal bowel habit group (P<0.05). The rectal wall compliance was increased in the poor bowel habit group as compared to the normal bowel habits group (P<0.01). Maximal tolerable volume and defecation sensation volume were greater in the poor bowel habits group than in the control group (P<0.01), but there was no significant difference in the threshold of sense between two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged poor bowel habit in childhood period leads to loss of rectal sensation, and provide an explanation for one of the pathophysiologic mechanism of non-relaxing puborectalis syndrome.