4.4 Article

Cortical evoked potentials in response to rapid balloon distension of the rectum and anal canal

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 26, 期 6, 页码 862-873

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.12341

关键词

anal canal; electroencephalography; evoked brain potentials; pain; rectum; unpleasantness

资金

  1. Danish Council for Strategic Research, The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Neurophysiological evaluation of anorectal sensory function is hampered by a paucity of methods. Rapid balloon distension (RBD) has been introduced to describe the cerebral response to rectal distension, but it has not successfully been applied to the anal canal. Methods Nineteen healthy women received 30 RBDs in the rectum and the anal canal at intensities corresponding to sensory and unpleasantness thresholds, and response was recorded as cortical evoked potentials (CEPs) in 64-channels. The anal canal stimulations at unpleasantness level were repeated after 4min to test the within-day reproducibility. CEPs were averaged, and to overcome latency variation related to jitter the spectral content of single sweeps was also computed. Key Results Repeated stimulation of the anal canal generated CEPs with similar latencies but smaller amplitudes compared to those from the rectum. Due to latency jitter, reproducibility of averaged CEPs was lower than what was found in the rectum. The most reproducible feature was N2P2 peak-to-peak amplitude with intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.7 and coefficient of variation (CV) of 18%. Spectral content of the single sweeps showed reproducibility with ICCs for all bands >0.8 and corresponding CVs <7%. Conclusions & Inferences Cortical potentials evoked from the anal canal are challenged by latency jitter likely related to variability in muscle tone due to the distensions. Using single-sweep analysis, anal CEPs proved to be reproducible and should be used in future evaluation of the anal function.

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