Advertisement

International Journal of Colorectal Disease

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 719–729 | Cite as

Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry in functional anorectal disorders: results from a large observational cohort study

  • Charlotte Andrianjafy
  • Laure Luciano
  • Camille Bazin
  • Karine Baumstarck
  • Michel Bouvier
  • Véronique VittonEmail author
Original Article
  • 181 Downloads

Abstract

Background

The aim of the study was to describe the results of 3D high-resolution anorectal manometry (3DHRAM) in a large cohort of patients with functional anorectal disorders.

Methods

In this single-center retrospective study, all consecutive patients referred for investigation of fecal incontinence (FI) or dyssynergic defecation (DD) underwent 3DHRAM. The parameters analyzed were usual manometric data, repartition of dyssynergic patterns, and the prevalence of a new “muscular subtype classification” underlying dyssynergia, anal sphincter defects, and pelvic floor disorders.

Results

Final analyses were performed in 1477 patients with a mean age 54 ± 16 years; 825 patients suffered from DD, and 652 patients suffered from FI. Among these patients, 86% met the diagnostic criteria for dyssynergia. Type II dyssynergia was the most frequently observed (56%) in women and men suffering from FI and in women with DD. Type I was the most frequently observed in men with DD (49%). Regarding the muscle type subgroups, combined puborectalis muscle involvement with an external anal sphincter profile was the most frequently observed. The global prevalence of rectal intussusception and excessive perineal descent were 12% and 21%, respectively. Type III dyssynergia was more frequently associated with pelvic floor disorders than were other types of dyssynergia (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This large cohort study provides reference values for 3DHRAM in patients with functional anorectal disorders. Further studies are necessary to assess the prevalence of pelvic floor disorders in healthy volunteers and to develop new scores and classifications including all of these new parameters.

Keywords

3D high-resolution anorectal manometry Functional anorectal disorders Constipation Fecal incontinence 

Notes

Author contributions

CA performed the research, collected data, and wrote the paper.

LL performed the research and collected data.

CB performed the research and collected data.

KB conducted all statistical analyses.

MB performed the research, collected data, and wrote the paper.

VV designed the research study, performed the research, and wrote the paper.

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical statement

VV, MB, and CA have been consultants for Medtronic.

References

  1. 1.
    Rao SSC (2010) Advances in diagnostic assessment of fecal incontinence and dyssynergic defecation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 8:910–919CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diamant NE, Kamm MA, Wald A, Whitehead WE (1999) AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology 116:735–760CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azpiroz F, Enck P, Whitehead WE (2002) Anorectal functional testing: review of collective experience. Am J Gastroenterol 97:232–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rao SSC, Azpiroz F, Diamant N, Enck P, Tougas G, Wald A (2002) Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 14:553–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Meunier PD, Gallavardin D (1993) Anorectal manometry: the state of the art. Dig Dis 11:252–264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Savoye G, Leroi AM, Bertot-Sassigneux P, Touchais JY, Devroede G, Denis P (2002) Does water-perfused catheter overdiagnose anismus compared to balloon probe? Scand J Gastroenterol 37:1411–1416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheeney G, Nguyen M, Valestin J, Rao SSC (2012) Topographic and Manometric characterization of the recto-anal inhibitory reflex (RAIR). Neurogastroenterol Motil 24:e147–e154CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee TH, Lee JS (2012) High-resolution anorectal manometry and anal Endosonographic findings in the evaluation of fecal incontinence. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 18:450–451CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones MP, Post J, Crowell MD (2007) High-resolution manometry in the evaluation of anorectal disorders: a simultaneous comparison with water-perfused manometry. Am J Gastroenterol 102:850–855CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee HJ, Jung KW, Han S, Kim JW, Park SK, Yoon IJ, Koo HS, Seo SY, Yang DH, Kim KJ, Ye BD, Byeon JS, Yang SK, Kim JH, Myung SJ (2014) Normal values for high-resolution anorectal manometry/topography in a healthy Korean population and the effects of gender and body mass index. Neurogastroenterol Motil 26:529–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Noelting J, Ratuapli SK, Bharucha AE, Harvey DM, Ravi K, Zinsmeister AR (2012) Normal values for high-resolution anorectal manometry in healthy women: effects of age and significance of rectoanal gradient. Am J Gastroenterol 107:1530–1536CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Li Y, Yang X, Xu C, Zhang Y, Zhang X (2013) Normal values and pressure morphology for three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry of asymptomatic adults: a study in 110 subjects. Int J Color Dis 28:1161–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Carrington EV, Grossi U, Knowles CH, Scott SM (2014) Normal values for high-resolution anorectal manometry: a time for consensus and collaboration. Neurogastroenterol Motil 26:1356–1357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lazarescu A, Sadowski DC (2011) High resolution anorectal manometry: establishment of normal values in healthy volunteers. Gastroenterology 140:S–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Coss-Adame E, Rao SS, Valestin J et al (2015) Accuracy and reproducibility of high-definition anorectal manometry and pressure topography analyses in healthy subjects. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13:1143–1150.e1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xu C, Zhao R, Conklin JL et al (2014) Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry in the diagnosis of paradoxical puborectalis syndrome compared with healthy adults: a retrospective study in 79 cases. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 26:621–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mion F, Garros A, Brochard C, Vitton V, Ropert A, Bouvier M, Damon H, Siproudhis L, Roman S (2017) 3D high-definition anorectal manometry: values obtained in asymptomatic volunteers, fecal incontinence and chronic constipation. Results of a prospective multicenter study (NOMAD). Neurogastroenterol Motil 29(8).  https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.13049
  18. 18.
    Pilipenko VI, Tepliuk DA, Shakhovskaia AK, Isakov VA (2014) Normal values for high-resolution anorectal manometry in a healthy women: effects of age and maternity. Eksp Klin Gastroenterol (7):55–58Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    James-Stevenson T, Xu H, Heit M, Shin A (2018) Age and dyssynergia subtypes associated with normal sphincter pressures in women with fecal incontinence. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 24(3):247–251Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vitton V, Ben Hadj Amor W, Baumstarck K et al (2013) Comparison of three-dimensional high-resolution manometry and endoanal ultrasound in the diagnosis of anal sphincter defects. Colorectal Dis 15:e607–e611CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Benezech A, Cappiello M, Baumstarck K, Grimaud JC, Bouvier M, Vitton V (2017) Rectal intussusception: can high resolution three-dimensional ano-rectal manometry compete with conventional defecography? Neurogastroenterol Motil 29(4).  https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.12978
  22. 22.
    Benezech A, Bouvier M, Grimaud J-C et al (2014) Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry and diagnosis of excessive perineal descent: a comparative pilot study with defaecography. Colorectal Dis 16:O170–O175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ratuapli SK, Bharucha AE, Noelting J, Harvey DM, Zinsmeister AR (2013) Phenotypic identification and classification of functional defecatory disorders using high-resolution anorectal manometry. Gastroenterology 144:314–322.e2CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Etiology and management of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 36:77–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Knowles CH, Scott SM, Legg PE, Allison ME, Lunniss PJ (2002) Level of classification performance of KESS (symptom scoring system for constipation) validated in a prospective series of 105 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 45:842–843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rao SS, Welcher KD, Leistikow JS (1998) Obstructive defecation: a failure of rectoanal coordination. Am J Gastroenterol 93:1042–1050CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee TH, Bharucha AE (2016) How to perform and interpret a high-resolution anorectal manometry test. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 22:46–59CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Grossi U, Carrington EV, Bharucha AE, Horrocks EJ, Scott SM, Knowles CH (2016) Diagnostic accuracy study of anorectal manometry for diagnosis of dyssynergic defaecation. Gut 65:447–455CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rao SSC, Patcharatrakul T (2016) Diagnosis and treatment of dyssynergic defecation. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 22:423–435CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raja S, Okeke FC, Stein EM, Dhalla S, Nandwani M, Lynch KL, Gyawali CP, Clarke JO (2017) Three-dimensional anorectal manometry enhances diagnostic gain by detecting sphincter defects and puborectalis pressure. Dig Dis Sci 62:3536–3541CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vitton V, Grimaud J-C, Bouvier M (2013) Three-dimension high-resolution anorectal manometry can precisely measure perineal descent. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 19:257–258CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Heinrich H, Fruehauf H, Sauter M, Steingötter A, Fried M, Schwizer W, Fox M (2013) The effect of standard compared to enhanced instruction and verbal feedback on anorectal manometry measurements. Neurogastroenterol Motil 25:230–237, e163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bharucha AE, Dunivan G, Goode PS, Lukacz ES, Markland AD, Matthews CA, Mott L, Rogers RG, Zinsmeister AR, Whitehead WE, Rao SSC, Hamilton FA (2015) Epidemiology, pathophysiology, and classification of fecal incontinence: state of the science summary for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) workshop. Am J Gastroenterol 110:127–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Abramov Y, Sand PK, Botros SM, Gandhi S, Miller JJR, Nickolov A, Goldberg RP (2005) Risk factors for female anal incontinence: new insight through the Evanston-Northwestern twin sisters study. Obstet Gynecol 106:726–732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rao SSC, Ozturk R, Laine L (2005) Clinical utility of diagnostic tests for constipation in adults: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 100:1605–1615CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Staller K (2015) Role of anorectal manometry in clinical practice. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 13:418–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rao SSC, Mudipalli RS, Stessman M, Zimmerman B (2004) Investigation of the utility of colorectal function tests and Rome II criteria in dyssynergic defecation (Anismus). Neurogastroenterol Motil 16:589–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patcharatrakul T, Valestin J, Schmeltz A, Schulze K, Rao SSC (2018) Factors associated with response to biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 16(5):715–721Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rezaie A, Iriana S, Pimentel M et al (2017) Can three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry detect anal sphincter defects in patients with faecal incontinence? Colorectal Dis 19:468–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mellgren A, Bremmer S, Johansson C, Dolk A, Udén R, Ahlbäck SO, Holmström B (1994) Defecography. Results of investigations in 2,816 patients. Dis Colon Rectum 37:1133–1141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Weiss EG, McLemore EC (2008) Functional disorders: rectoanal intussusception. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 21:122–128CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ramage L, Simillis C, Yen C, Lutterodt C, Qiu S, Tan E, Kontovounisios C, Tekkis P (2017) Magnetic resonance defecography versus clinical examination and fluoroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tech Coloproctol 21:915–927CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Benezech A, Bouvier M, Lesavre N, Gonzalez JM, Baumstarck K, Grimaud JC, Vitton V (2016) Does patient position influence the results of three-dimension high resolution ano-rectal manometry? Br J Med Med Res 13:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Altomare DF, Rinaldi M, Veglia A, Guglielmi A, Sallustio PL, Tripoli G (2001) Contribution of posture to the maintenance of anal continence. Int J Color Dis 16:51–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Gastroenterology Department, North Hospital, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de MarseilleAix Marseille UniversitéMarseilleFrance
  2. 2.Department of GastroenterologyInstruction Hospital of French Army LaveranMarseilleFrance
  3. 3.EA3279 Self-perceived Health Assessment Research Unit, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de MarseilleAix Marseille UniversitéMarseilleFrance

Personalised recommendations