Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Three-Dimensional Anorectal Manometry Enhances Diagnostic Gain by Detecting Sphincter Defects and Puborectalis Pressure

Authors
  • Raja, Shreya1
  • Okeke, Francis C.1
  • Stein, Ellen M.1
  • Dhalla, Sameer1
  • Nandwani, Monica2
  • Lynch, Kristle L.1
  • Gyawali, C. Prakash3
  • Clarke, John O.2
  • 1 The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baltimore, MD, USA , Baltimore (United States)
  • 2 Stanford University School of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford, CA, USA , Stanford (United States)
  • 3 Washington University School of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, St. Louis, MO, USA , St. Louis (United States)
Type
Published Article
Journal
Digestive Diseases and Sciences
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Publication Date
Feb 13, 2017
Volume
62
Issue
12
Pages
3536–3541
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-017-4466-5
Source
Springer Nature
Keywords
License
Yellow

Abstract

BackgroundConstipation and fecal incontinence (FI) are common and are often evaluated with anorectal manometry. Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) is a promising technology; however, implementation has been limited by lack of metrics and unclear clinical utility.AimTo investigate the diagnostic utility of 3D HRAM compared to 2D HRAM.MethodsThree-dimensional HRAM studies performed from April 2012 to October 2013 were identified and re-interpreted by two blinded investigators examining 3D function. Disagreements were resolved by a third investigator. Puborectalis (PR) visualization, focal defects, and dyssynergy were reported. Differences between groups were analyzed with Fisher’s exact test. Discordance was analyzed with McNemar Chi-square test.ResultsTwo hundred and twenty-one 3D HRAM studies were identified. Mean age and BMI were 52.2 ± 17.4 and 27.1 ± 7.5 years (81% female, 74% white). Most common indications for 3D HRAM were constipation (65%) and FI (28%). PR function was visualized in 81% (rest), 97% (squeeze), and 73% (strain). PR was visualized less often at rest in FI than constipation (68 vs. 85%, p = 0.007). Defects were identified twice as often in FI than constipation (19 vs. 10%, p = 0.113). Twenty-nine defects (86% anterior) were visualized on 3D HRAM. Inter-reader agreement was moderate for PR function (κ = 0.471), but fair for focal defects (κ = 0.304).ConclusionsPR function and focal defects can be visualized on 3D-HRAM with added diagnostic benefit compared to 2D. Fair inter-reader agreement for focal defects highlights the need for quantitative metrics.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times