4.4 Article

A novel technique for bedside anorectal manometry in humans

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 27, 期 10, 页码 1504-1508

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.12636

关键词

anorectal manometry; constipation; fecal incontinence; rectal sensation

资金

  1. Medspira Inc
  2. National Institute of Health [RO1 DK 78924]
  3. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) [UL1 TR000135]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Currently, anorectal manometry (ARM), which is used to diagnose defecatory disorders and identify anal weakness in fecal incontinence (FI) is generally conducted in specialized laboratories. Our aims were to compare anorectal functions measured with high-resolution manometry (HRM) and a novel portable manometry device. Methods Anal pressures at rest, during squeeze, and simulated evacuation, and rectal sensation were evaluated with portable and HRM in 20 healthy women, 19 women with constipation, and 11 with FI. The relationship between anal pressures measured with portable and HRM was assessed by the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), Bland Altman test, and paired t-tests. Key Results Anal pressures at rest (CCC 0.45; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.58) and during squeeze (CCC 0.60; 95% CI: 0.46, 0.72) measured with portable and HRM were correlated and inversely associated with the risk of FI. During simulated evacuation, the CCC for rectal pressure (0.62; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.76) was greater than that for anal pressure (CCC 0.22; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.39) and the rectoanal gradient (CCC 0.22; 95% CI: 0.02, 0.41). Rectal sensory thresholds for first sensation, the desire to defecate, and urgency measured by portable and HRM were also significantly correlated between techniques. For several parameters, differences between portable and HRM were statistically significant and the Bland Altman test was positive. Conclusions & Inferences Anorectal pressures and rectal sensation can be conveniently measured by portable manometry and are significantly correlated with high-resolution manometry.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据