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. Issue 5 (12th February 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sauter, M.; Heinrich, H.; Fox, M.; Misselwitz, B.; Halama, M.; Schwizer, W.; Fried, M.; Fruehauf, H.
• Is Part Of: Neurogastroenterology & motility. Volume 26:Issue 5(2014:May)
• Page Start: 685
• Page End: 695
• Publication Date: 2014-02-12
• Subjects: Gastrointestinal system -- Motility -- Periodicals; Gastrointestinal system -- Innervation -- Periodicals; 616.33
• DOI: 10.1111/nmo.12317
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1350-1925

Abstract

<abstract abstract-type="main" id="nmo12317-abs-0001"> <title>Abstract</title> <sec id="nmo12317-sec-0001" sec-type="section"> <title>Background</title> <p>Measurements of anorectal function using high‐resolution anorectal manometry (HR‐ARM) and rectal barostat technology provide more reliable results than standard ARM with an elastic balloon; however, HR‐ARM results have not been compared to ARM and standard barostat protocols are impractical in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to validate HR‐ARM against standard ARM and standard barostat against a novel Rapid Barostat Bag (RBB) measurement and elastic balloon measurements of rectal function.</p> </sec> <sec id="nmo12317-sec-0002" sec-type="section"> <title>Methods</title> <p>Twenty‐six healthy volunteers (15 female, 11 male, 19–52 years) were studied. Measurements of anal function and simulated defecation were compared for 12‐sensor HR‐ARM and 6‐sensor standard ARM using line plots from the same recording. Rectal capacity, compliance, and sensation (volume threshold) were measured by elastic balloon, standard barostat, and RBB methods using stepwise inflation of a 700‐mL polyethylene bag to 40 mmHg distension by electronic barostat and handheld syringe monitored by sphygmo‐manometer, respectively. Results are reported as mean ± SD. Bland–Altman plots and correlation coefficients (<italic>r</italic>) for measurements were calculated.</p> </sec> <sec id="nmo12317-sec-0003" sec-type="section"> <title>Key Results</title> <p>There was excellent agreement between HR‐ and standard ARM measurements (<italic>r</italic> > 0.86, <25 mmHg difference) and between standard barostat and RBB measurements of rectal capacity (<italic>r</italic> = 0.97, <25 mL difference). Correlation coefficients of threshold volumes for initial perception, urgency and discomfort were 0.37, 0.71, and 0.95, respectively. No significant correlation was present with elastic balloon measurements. Time to complete studies was shorter for HR‐ARM than standard ARM and for RBB than standard barostat in historical controls.</p> </sec> <sec id="nmo12317-sec-0004" sec-type="section"> <title>Conclusions & Inferences</title> <p>HR‐ARM with RBB measurements of anorectal function provides quick and reasonably accurate measurements of continence function suitable for use in routine clinical practice (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://ClinicalTrial.gov" xlink:type="simple" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">ClinicalTrial.gov</ext-link> NCT01456442).</p> </sec> </abstract>