ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: High-resolution anorectal manometry (HRM) is widely used in the evaluation of anal incontinence and constipation, which become increasingly prevalent with age. However, the impact of age and comorbidities on physiological digestive parameters remains poorly understood. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of age on anorectal function. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on patients at our digestive motility clinic between January 2016 and May 2019. All patients with a normal HRM were included. Clinical data and HRM parameters were collected in a database. Multivariate regression analyses were performed to evaluate the effects of age, sex, medical comorbidities and obstetric history on anorectal HRM parameters. KEY RESULTS: One hundred and forty-four patients were included (mean age: 53 ± 16 years, 72% females). The main indications for anorectal HRM were incontinence (44%), constipation (37%) and anorectal pain (9%). Age was significantly associated with higher maximum tolerable volume (ß = +0.48 mL year-1, P = 0.04) and higher rectal compliance (ß = +0.04 mL year-1, P = 0.01). Independently from age and medical comorbidities, female demonstrated significantly lower mean endurance squeeze pressure (ß = -44.4 mmHg, P < 0.001), maximal squeeze pressure (ß = -62.3 mmHg; P < 0.001), volume at first urge (ß = -16.7 mL, P = 0.02) and maximum tolerable volume (ß = -16.1 mL, P = 0.046). Vaginal birth was associated with lower tolerable maximum pressure (ß = -39.4 mmHg, P = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Age and sex are independent factors which influence anorectal HRM parameters. These findings should be taken into consideration when interpreting anorectal HRM.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lidocaine is commonly applied to improve the tolerance of esophageal manometry (EM) and ambulatory pH monitoring (PM). We recently published data suggesting a benefit to this practice and we aimed to confirm these findings in a randomized trial. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial of lidocaine nasal spray versus placebo (saline) before EM and PM. Patients referred to our center who met inclusion criteria were enrolled. Patients were asked to fill a questionnaire after their test and patient-reported adverse effects were compared. KEY RESULTS: Three hundred and four patients were enrolled in our trial. Lidocaine and placebo groups were demographically similar. The primary outcome, pain during catheter insertion, occurred in 60/148 (40.5%) patients in the lidocaine group versus in 72/152 (47.4%) patients in the placebo group (OR: 0.76 [95% CI: 0.48-1.20]; p = 0.23). Patients receiving lidocaine were less likely to report nausea during test recording (OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.24-0.91]; p = 0.02) and reported slightly lower intensity of pain during both catheter insertion and test recording (4.68 ± 2.06 versus 5.41 ± 2.24 on 10; p = 0.048 and 3.71 ± 2.00 versus 4.93 ± 2.55 on 10; p = 0.03, respectively). Furthermore, patients receiving lidocaine were less likely to report their test as globally uncomfortable and painful (57% vs. 75%; p = 0.003 and 14% vs. 21%; p = 0.02, respectively). No events of systemic lidocaine toxicity occurred during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Routine use of lidocaine before esophageal function tests does not reduce pain during catheter insertion but may provide other modest benefits with limited toxicity.
