Comparison of Anorectal Manometry to Endoanal Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Fecal Incontinence

Reddymasu, Savio; Singh, Shailender; Waheed, Sana; Oropeza-Vail, Melissa; McCallum, Richard W.; Olyaee, Mojtaba

doi:10.1097/maj.0b013e318198caca

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is consistent with the absent or very weak correlation between the results of these methods reported by several case series . A correlation between EUS and ARM measurements is usually observed only if a sphincter defect is present (e.g., size of sphincter defect vs resting pressure) . Thus, EUS and ARM should be considered complementary and not competing methods in evaluating patients with fecal incontinence …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Toward more accurate measurements of anorectal motor and sensory function in routine clinical practice: Validation of High‐Resolution Anorectal Manometry and Rapid Barostat Bag measurements of rectal function

Sauter

Heinrich

Fox

et al. 2014

Neurogastroenterology Motil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Toward more accurate measurements of anorectal motor and sensory function in routine clinical practice: Validation of High‐Resolution Anorectal Manometry and Rapid Barostat Bag measurements of rectal function

Sauter

Heinrich

Fox

et al. 2014

Neurogastroenterology Motil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have previously reported a lack of correlation between internal and external anal sphincter thickness and MBP or MSP [24]. Others have also found little [20,25] or no correlation [5]. These discrepancies may be due to a lack of information about the pudendal nerve.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have analysed the differences between incontinent and continent patients using basic anorectal function tests. These reports have shown that patients with values outside the normal range may not have clinical symptoms and patients with clinical symptoms may exhibit normal values [5][6][7]. Although incontinent and continent patients have an overlap in anorectal function, in general, patients with FI have a lower squeeze pressure and a reduced rectal capacity [8][9][10].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anorectal function evaluation and predictive factors for faecal incontinence in 600 patients

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, the reproducibility for sphincter defects and anal sphincter thickness is excellent [14]. Furthermore, the presence of atrophy of the sphincters can be established [15, 16]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Anal manometry can demonstrate lower sphincter pressures in patients with anal sphincter defects, but also in patients with atrophy and is not discriminatory [15, 16]. Anal manometry cannot predict the efficacy of physiotherapy and biofeedback [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Critical reappraisal of anorectal function tests in patients with faecal incontinence who have failed conservative treatment

Lam

Mulder

Felt‐Bersma

2012

Int J Colorectal Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveAnorectal function tests are often performed in patients with faecal incontinence who have failed conservative treatment. This study was aimed to establish the additive value of performing anorectal function tests in these patients in selecting them for surgery.Patients and methodsBetween 2003 and 2009, all referred patients with faecal incontinence were assessed by a questionnaire, anorectal manometry and anal endosonography. Patients with diarrhea, inflammatory bowel disease, pouches or rectal carcinoma were excluded.ResultsIn total, 218 patients were evaluated. Of these, 107 (49%) patients had no sphincter defects, 71 (33%) had small defects and 40 (18%) had large defects. Anorectal manometry could not differentiate between patients with and without sphincter defects. Patients with sphincter defects were only found to have a significantly shorter sphincter length and reduced rectal capacity compared to patients without sphincter defects. Forty-three patients (20%) had a normal anal pressures ≥40 mmHg. Seventeen patients (8%) had also a dyssynergic pelvic floor both on clinical examination and anorectal manometry. Fifteen patients (7%) had a reduced rectal capacity between 65 and 100 ml. There was no difference in anal pressures or the presence of sphincter defects in these patients compared to patients with a rectal capacity >150 ml. There was no correlation between anorectal manometry, endosonography and faecal incontinence severity scores.ConclusionIn patients with faecal incontinence who have failed conservative treatment, only anal endosonography can reveal sphincter defects. Anorectal manometry should be reserved for patients eligible for surgery to exclude those with suspected dyssynergic floor or reduced rectal capacity.

show abstract

Comparison of Anorectal Manometry to Endoanal Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Fecal Incontinence

Cited by 21 publications

References 22 publications

Toward more accurate measurements of anorectal motor and sensory function in routine clinical practice: Validation of High‐Resolution Anorectal Manometry and Rapid Barostat Bag measurements of rectal function

Toward more accurate measurements of anorectal motor and sensory function in routine clinical practice: Validation of High‐Resolution Anorectal Manometry and Rapid Barostat Bag measurements of rectal function

Anorectal function evaluation and predictive factors for faecal incontinence in 600 patients

Critical reappraisal of anorectal function tests in patients with faecal incontinence who have failed conservative treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About