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.

Characteristic Findings and Their Clinical Appraisal of Proctography and Cinedefecography in Patients with Pelvic Outlet Obstructive Disease

PURPOSE: We were assessed the characteristic findings of defecography and cinedefecography in patients with pelvic outlet obstructive disease, and compared the characteristic physiologic findings between proctography and cinedefecography. METHODS: Physiologic findings of 196 patients who were performed at least two items of physiologic tests were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were categorized as rectocele (Group I: n=119), nonrelaxing puborectalis syndrome (Group II: n=58), rectoanal intussusception (Group III: n=16), significant sigmoidocele (Group IV: n=3). The proctographic and cinedefecographic features were analyzed according to disease categories. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, false positive rate, false negative rate, diagnostic rate, and reproducibility were calculated, and we analyzed the difference between proctography and cinedefecography according to the disease groups. RESULTS: On the proctographic examinations; 1) 112 patients were confirmed as a clinically significant rectocele (n=128, sensitivity; 94%, specificity; 79%, accuracy; 88%, false positive rate; 21%, false negative rate; 6%, kappa; 0.749). 2) A clinically significant nonrelaxing puborectalis were 36 patients (n=73, sensitivity; 62%, specificity; 73%, accuracy; 70%, false positive rate; 27%, false negative rate; 38%, kappa; 0.328). 3) 12 patients were confirmed as significant rectoanal intussusception (n=31, sensitivity; 75%, specificity; 89%, accuracy; 88%, false positive rate; 11%, false negative rate; 25%, kappa; 0.425). 4) 3 patients were confirmed as clinically significant sigmoidocele (n=15, sensitivity; 100%, specificity; 94%, accuracy; 94%, false positive rate; 6%, false negative rate; 0%, kappa; 0.316). On the combination of proctography and cinedefecography; 1) 117 patients were confirmed as a clinically significant rectocele (n=122, sensitivity; 98%, specificity; 94%, accuracy; 96%, false positive rate; 6%, false negative rate; 2%, kappa; 0.925). 2) A clinically significant nonrelaxing puborectalis were 50 patients (n=64, sensitivity; 86%, specificity; 90%, accuracy; 88%, false positive rate; 10%, false negative rate; 14%, kappa; 0.738). 3) 16 patients were confirmed as significant rectoanal intussusception (n=22, sensitivity; 100%, specificity; 97%, accuracy; 97%, false positive rate; 3%, false negative rate; 0%, kappa; 0.826). 4) 3 patients were confirmed as clinically significant sigmoidocele (n=9, sensitivity; 100%, specificity; 97%, accuracy; 97%, false positive rate; 3%, false negative rate; 0%, kappa; 0.488). As compared with combined study (proctography plus cinedefecography), the proctography show decreased diagnostic rates in the evaluation of rectocele (P<0.05), nonrelaxing puborectalis (P<0.01), and rectoanal intussusception (P<0.05). And, the proctography also show increased false positive rate in the evaluation of rectocele (P<0.01), nonrelaxing puborectalis (P<0.01), and rectoanal intussusception (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In our study, proctography showed a tendency to overdiagnosis. Therefore, the combined study of proctography and cinedefecography should be taken as a diagnostic tools for pelvic outlet obstructive disease. Adhering to these findings, other anorectal physiologic studies should be added for the clinically significant diagnosis.

Biofeedback Therapy in Patients with Nonrelaxing Puborectalis Syndrome: Are there differences of therapeutic effect according to methods of diagnosis?

PURPOSE: To evaluate therapeutic effect of biofeedback therapy according to methods of diagnosis in patients with norelaxing puborectalis syndrome. METHODS: From September, 1, 1998 to February, 30, 1999, the patients who were diagnosed with norelaxing puborectalis syndrome on anal electromyography (EMG) and/or cinedefecography (CD) underwent biofeedback therapy. The patients were divided into 3 groups according to the diagnostic method; CD group - only diagnosed on cinedefecography, EMG group - only diagnosed on anal electromyography, CD EMG group - diagnosed on both tests. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were diagnosed nonrelaxing puborectalis syndrome on CD and/or EMG. There were 14 females and 5 males with a mean age of 40.8+/-18.4 years. The patients were classified into CD group; five patients (26.3%); EMG group, eight patients (42.1%); CD EMG group, six patients (31.6%). The patients had 5.4 3.7 sessions of outpatient EMG-based biofeedback sessions. Subjective symptoms after biofeedback therapy improved in 4 (80.0%), 6 (75%), 5 (83%) patients in CD, EMG, CD EMG groups, respectively. There was a statistically significant increase in spontaneous bowel movements, and a reduction in assisted bowel movements after biofeedback therapy in patients in all three groups (p<0.05). However, no significant difference was found among the three groups. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that biofeedback therapy had a high therapeutic effect regardless to the diagnostic method. Therefore, biofeedbck therapy can be performed if one test results in the diagnosis of norelaxing puborectalis syndrome in patients with constipation.

A Roles of Cinedefecography and Electromyography in the Diagnosis of Paradoxical Puborectalis Syndrome

BACKGROUND: Paradoxical puborectalis syndrome (PPS) is a complex and poorly understood entity characterized by contraction rather than relaxation of the pelvic floor muscles during attempted evacuation. Anal electromyography (EMG) and cinedefecography (CD) are the most commonly used tests for the diagnosis of PPS. Therefore, the aim of this study was to prospectively assess the correlation of EMG and CD in the diagnosis of PPS. METHODS: All patients with symptoms of obstructed evacuation who underwent EMG and CD between September 1998 and February 1999, were evaluated. The clinical criteria for PPS included incomplete or difficult evacuation, straining, tenesmus, and the need for an enema or digitation. The EMG criteria included failure to achieve a significant decrease in the electrical activity of the puborectalis during attempted evacuation. The CD criteria included either paradoxical contraction or failure of the puborectalis to relax along with incomplete evacuation. RESULTS: Twenty-nine (29) patients had clinical evidence of PPS, 8 males and 21 females with a mean age of 42.6 years (range, 19-75 years), and underwent CD and EMG. The mean duration of symptoms was 7.2 years (range, 3 months-30 years). Nineteen patients (65.5%) had evidence as having PPS on CD and/or EMG. Of these patients, six patients (20.7%) were diagnosed as having PPS on both tests, five patients (17.2%) were only diagnosed on CD, and eight patients (27.6%) were only diagnosed on EMG. The remaining ten patients had normal puborectalis muscle relaxation on CD and EMG. Therefore, the correlation rate between the two tests was 55.2%. If EMG was considered as the ideal test for the diagnosis of PPS, CD had a sensitivity of 42.9% and a specificity of 66.7%. Conversely, if CD was considered as the ideal test, EMG had a sensitivity of 54.5% and a specificity of 55.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity and the specificity values of EMG and CD for the diagnosis of PPS are suboptimal, and a low correlation existed between the two tests. This result suggests that the diagnosis of PPS should not be based upon only one test.