Manifestaciones imagenológicas y manométricas en pacientes con estreñimiento funcional / Imaging and manometric manifestations in patients with functional constipation

INTRODUCCIÓN: el estreñimiento es un síntoma o afección que puede comprometer la calidad de vida de los pacientes. Su prevalencia global varía entre 2 % y 28 %. OBJETIVO: evaluar la concordancia entre los resultados de los exámenes imagenológicos y la manometría anorrectal, en pacientes con sospecha de estreñimiento funcional. MÉTODOS: la muestra estuvo conformada por 37 pacientes, a los que se les realizó exámenes radiológicos de cecocolografía secuencial (o colon por ingestión), tiempo de tránsito colónico con marcadores radiopacos, defecografía y examen manométrico. Se calculó el índice de Kappa para determinar la concordancia. RESULTADOS: 62,2 % de los enfermos fueron del sexo femenino, la edad predominante estuvo entre 41 y 60 años (43,2 %), predominó el ciego móvil (54,2 %) como causa de estreñimiento. Se hicieron 14 estudios de tiempo de tránsito colónico con marcadores radiopacos, de ellos 28,6 % presentó un tiempo de tránsito lento. Se realizó defecografía a 4 pacientes y 3 presentaron disfunción del suelo pelviano. Se constató que 94,6 % de las pruebas imagenológicas y 78,4 % de las manometrías resultaron positivas (Kappa p= 0,006). CONCLUSIÓN: las técnicas imagenológicas que se investigaron son apropiadas para diagnosticar el estreñimiento funcional y la concordancia de dichas técnicas con la manometría anorrectal es adecuada.

INTRODUCTION: constipation is a symptom or condition that can compromise the quality of patient's life. Its global prevalence varies between 2 % and 28 %. OBJECTIVE: evaluate the correlation between the results of imaging tests and anorectal manometry in patients with suspected functional constipation. METHODS: the sample consisted of 37 patients, who underwent radiological examinations of sequential cecocolografía (colon or swallowed), colonic transit time with radiopaque markers, defecography and manometric examination. Kappa index was calculated to determine the correlation. RESULTS: 62.2 % of patients were female, the predominant age was between 41 and 60 years (43.2 %), mobile blind predominated (54.2 %) as a cause of constipation. 14 studies of colonic transit time with radiopaque markers, were made, 28.6 % of them presented a slow transit time. 4 patients underwent defecography and 3 had pelvic floor dysfunction. It was found that 94.6 % of imaging tests and 78.4 % of manometries were positive (Kappa p= 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: imaging techniques used in this study are suitable for diagnosing functional constipation and consistency of these techniques is suitable anorectal manometry.

Use of locally innovated radiopaque markers (MAKKO pills) for colonic transit study

Locally made radiopaque markers for colonic transit study are presented, specifically on how they were made, and how they compared radiographically with markers available abroad. These markers were produced using locally available materials like barium powder, a feeding tube, cyanoacrylate, and emptied drug capsules. They were then ingested and monitored by X-ray. They were found to be radiographically comparable with imported ones. No adverse events were noted when used in 5 patients: 2 patients with constipation secondary to chronic laxative abuse, 2 patients with reducible complete rectal prolapse, and 1 patient with constipation secondary to short segment Hirschsprungs' Disease. (Author)

Role of Colonic Transit Study in Determining the Results of a Subtotal Colectomy for Colonic Inertia

PURPOSE: The results of a subtotal colectomy in colonic inertia, even those reported in the most recent literature, vary dramatically. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of a colonic transit study on the results of a subtotal colectomy in colonic inertia. METHODS: Between 1992 and 1997, 30 patients underwent a subtotal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis due to colonic inertia. Twenty-one of them underwent a colonic transit study only one time preoperatively, and 9 patients underwent such a study two times. The success rate was calculated using traditional definition with two sets of criteria. We modi fied the criteria of success by including new symptoms, such as abdominal, pelvic, or rectal pain, difficult evacuation, and loose stool or diarrhea. The success rate was recalculated using our more stringent cri teria, and compared between group 1 and group 2. RESULTS: By the traditional definition, the functional success rate was 100% for patients undergoing a colonic transit study two times preoperatively and 90% for patients undergoing only one study (p=0.34). By our more stringent criteria, the success rate was 100% for patients undergoing studies two times and 62% for those undergoing only one study (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The success rate of a colectomy for colonic inertia was significantly higher for patients who underwent a repeat transit study than for those who underwent a single study. Patients who have two or more transit studies to confirm the diagnosis of inertia have a significantly higher probability of postoperative improvement of both bowel frequency and associated symptoms, such as pain and difficult evacuation. The mechanism for this discriminatory effect of repeated colonic transit studies requires elucidation by further study.

Study of Reproducibility of Colonic Transit Study in Patients with Chronic Constipation

BACKGROUND: There are few reports about the reproducibility of colonic transit studies. Major therapeutic decisions are rendered based upon a single colonic transit study. Therefore, the aim of this study was to access the reproducibility of colonic transit studies in patients with chronic constipation. METHODS: Fifty one (51) patients with chronic constipation underwent two separate colonic transit studies. All clinical conditions, methodologies, and patients' instructions were identical on both occasions. The gamma rate (linear correlation analysis) was taken between the first and the second colonic transit studies. The patients were subdivided into those tested within the same year and those whose tests occurred more than 12 months apart. These two groups were further divided according to the diagnosis of colonic inertia, paradoxical puborectalis contraction, and chronic idiopathic constipation. RESULTS: In 35 of the 51 patients (69%), the results were identical between the two studies; however, in 16 patients (31%), the results were disparate (gamma correlation coefficient=0.53; p<0.01). The correlation coefficient for tests repeated within one year was 0.38 (p<0.05) whereas for periods greater than one year it was 0.72 (p<0.01). The specific correlation coefficients for patients with colonic inertia, paradoxical puborectalis contraction, and chronic idiopathic constipation were 0.12, 0.21, and 0.60 (p<0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Colonic transit studies are reproducible in patients with chronic constipation, regardless of the duration between tests. The correlation coefficient is best for patients with idiopathic constipation and worst for patients with colonic inertia.