Computer-generated profiles of the anal canal in patients with anal fissure.

PURPOSE: The pathophysiology of anal fissure remains poorly understood. This study examines manometric findings in patients with anal fissure with use of a computer-assisted system, which helps to standardize manometric performance as well as generating longitudinal and cross-sectional profiles of the anal canal. METHODS: Water-perfused, eight-channel, computer-assisted manometry was performed on 12 patients with chronic anal fissure and compared with 12 age-matched and sex-matched controls. RESULTS: Mean maximum average resting pressure (MARP) was 120.5 mmHg in patients and 82.6 mmHg in controls (P = 0.0005). Pain was felt during manometry in six patients. In these patients, MARP was 123.2 mmHg, and, in the other six patients, MARP was 117.8 mmHg. Sphincter length was 4.72 cm, and the high pressure zone or that part of the sphincter with pressure more than 50 percent of MARP) was 2.78 cm in length. The high pressure zone/sphincter length ratio was 58 percent compared with 48 percent in controls. Longitudinal profile was bell shaped. Elevated pressures were not confined to the site of the fissure. Cross-sectional analysis showed higher anterior pressures in the distal sphincter. Ultraslow waves were seen in as many as 91 percent of patients and 73 percent of controls. However, ultraslow wave amplitude was 31 mmHg in patients and 15 mmHg in controls (P = 0.03). The rectoanal reflex was normal; overshoot was not seen. CONCLUSIONS: The primary abnormality in fissure is persistent hypertonia affecting the entire internal sphincter, unrelated to pain. Cross-sectional pressure profiles may explain the predilection of fissures to occur in the posterior midline; other factors must prevent chronic fissures from healing.

Biofeedback training is useful in fecal incontinence but disappointing in constipation.

BACKGROUND: Successful biofeedback therapy has been reported in the treatment of fecal incontinence and constipation. It is uncertain which groups of incontinent patients benefit from biofeedback, and our impression has been that biofeedback is more successful for incontinence than for constipation. PURPOSE: This study was designed to review the results of biofeedback therapy at the Lahey Clinic. METHODS: Biofeedback was performed using an eight-channel, water-perfused manometry system. Patients saw anal canal pressures as a color bar graph on a computer screen. Assessment after biofeedback was by manometry and by telephone interview with an independent researcher. RESULTS: Fifteen patients (13 women and 2 men) with incontinence underwent a mean of three (range, 1-7) biofeedback sessions. The cause was obstetric (four patients), postsurgical (five patients), and idiopathic (six patients). Complete resolution of symptoms was reported in four patients, considerable improvement in four patients, and some improvement in three patients. Manometry showed a mean increase of 15.3 (range, -3-30) mmHg in resting pressure and 35.7 (range, 13-57) mmHg in squeezing pressure after biofeedback. A successful outcome could not be predicted on the basis of cause, severity of incontinence, or initial manometry. Twelve patients (10 women and 2 men) with constipation underwent a mean of three (range, 1-14) biofeedback sessions. Each had manometric evidence of paradoxic nonrelaxing external sphincter or puborectalis muscle confirmed by defography or electromyography. All patients could be taught to relax their sphincter in response to bearing down. Despite this, only one patient reported resolution of symptoms, three patients had reduced straining, and three patients had some gain in insight. CONCLUSIONS: Biofeedback helped 73 percent of patients with fecal incontinence, and its use should be considered regardless of the cause or severity of incontinence or of results on initial manometry. In contrast, biofeedback directed at correcting paradoxic external sphincter contraction has been disappointing.