Water-perfused manometry vs three-dimensional high-resolution manometry: a comparative study on a large patient population with anorectal disorders.

AIM: Our aim was to compare for the first time measurements obtained with water-perfused catheter anorectal manometry and three-dimensional (3D) high-resolution manometry in patients with anorectal disorders. METHOD: Consecutive patients referred to our centre for anorectal manometry (ARM) were recruited to undergo the two procedures successively. Conventional manometry was carried out using a water-perfused catheter (WPAM) and high-resolution manometry was achieved with a 3D probe (3DHRAM). For each procedure, parameters recorded included the following: anal canal length, resting pressure, squeeze pressure and rectal sensitivity. RESULTS: Two hundred and one patients were included in this study. The mean values for resting and squeeze pressures were correlated and found to be significantly higher when measured with 3DHRAM than with WPAM. However, the length of the anal canal was not significantly different when measured by the two techniques without correlation between the two mean values obtained. The presence of the rectoanal inhibitory reflex was systematically assessed by both WPAM and 3DHRAM and anismus was also systematically diagnosed by both WPAM and 3DHRAM. CONCLUSION: The pressure values obtained with 3DHRAM are correlated with those measured with conventional manometry but are systematically higher. 3DHRAM has the advantage of providing a pressure recording over the entire length and circumference of the anal canal, allowing a more useful physiological assessment of anorectal function.

Comparison of three-dimensional high-resolution manometry and endoanal ultrasound in the diagnosis of anal sphincter defects.

AIM: Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry (3D HRAM) is a new technique that can simultaneously provide physiological and topographical data. Our aim was to assess whether it can identify anal sphincter defects by comparing it with endoanal ultrasonography (EUS) considered as the gold standard. METHOD: An anal defect on 3D HRAM was defined as a continuous circumferential area over which the pressure was < 10 mmHg during the measurement of anal resting and voluntary contraction pressure. Inter-observer agreement was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (93 females) with a mean age of 53.5 ± 15.3 years were included. The positive diagnosis of an anal sphincter defect using 3D HRAM and EUS was in agreement (59.3%) (κ = 0.419) of the time for the internal anal sphincter (IAS) and (55.9%) (κ = 0.461) for the external anal sphincter (EAS). The inter-observer agreement for a diagnosis of an anal sphincter defect was (100%) (κ = 0.937) for the IAS and (95%) (κ = 0.751) for the EAS. The intra-class correlation coefficient for the extent of the defect was 0.853 for the IAS and 0.651 for the EAS. CONCLUSION: The preliminary results demonstrate some level of agreement in the diagnosis of anal sphincter defects between 3D HRAM and EUS but insufficient for 3D HRAM to be adequately reliable using the criteria chosen. The excellent inter-observer agreement, however, demonstrates that 3D HRAM is reproducible and provides a new dimension for the evaluation of sphincter function.