Advertisement

New Metrics in High-Resolution and High-Definition Anorectal Manometry

  • Myeongsook Seo
  • Segyeong Joo
  • Kee Wook Jung
  • Eun Mi Song
  • Satish S. C. Rao
  • Seung-Jae Myung
Neurogastroenterology and Motility Disorders of the Gastrointestinal Tract (S Rao, Section Editor)
  • 138 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Neurogastroenterology and Motility Disorders of the Gastrointestinal Tract

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To review recently published diagnostic methods that use high-resolution (HR-) or high-definition- (HD-) anorectal manometry (ARM) techniques.

Recent Findings

The integrated pressurized volume (IPV) is a new measure based on spatiotemporal plots obtained from HR-ARM. The IPV may be clinically useful for improving the prediction of abnormal balloon expulsion test in patients with constipation and for discriminating patients with anorectal disorders from asymptomatic controls. Combination of IPV parameters was superior to conventional manometric parameters in predicting the responsiveness to biofeedback therapy. Moreover, several novel parameters including the HR-ARM resting integral, HR-ARM squeeze profile, and anorectal asymmetry index may each be useful as predictive factors for identifying patients with fecal incontinence.

Summary

HR- and HD-ARM are increasingly performed worldwide for evaluation of anorectal function. Here, we describe new metrics whose clinical significance has not been fully established. Further standardization and validation of these metrics could provide clinically important new information and could help improve our understanding of the pathophysiology of anorectal disorders.

Keywords

High-resolution anorectal manometry High-definition anorectal manometry Constipation Fecal incontinence 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Raizada V, Bhargava V, Karsten A, Mittal RK. Functional morphology of anal sphincter complex unveiled by high definition anal manometery and three dimensional ultrasound imaging. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2011;23(11):1013–9 e460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheeney G, Remes-Troche JM, Attaluri A, Rao SSC. Investigation of anal motor characteristics of the sensorimotor response (SMR) using 3-D anorectal pressure topography. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2011;300(2):G236–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lee YY, Erdogan A, Rao SS. High resolution and high definition anorectal manometry and pressure topography: diagnostic advance or a new kid on the block? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2013;15(12):360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carrington EV, Scott SM, Bharucha A, Mion F, Remes-Troche JM, Malcolm A, et al. Expert consensus document: advances in the evaluation of anorectal function. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;15(5):309–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pandolfino JE, Ghosh SK, Rice J, Clarke JO, Kwiatek MA, Kahrilas PJ. Classifying esophageal motility by pressure topography characteristics: a study of 400 patients and 75 controls. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(1):27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rao SS, Welcher KD, Leistikow JS. Obstructive defecation: a failure of rectoanal coordination. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93(7):1042–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rao SS, et al. Ambulatory 24-hour colonic manometry in slow-transit constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(12):2405–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wolberg G. Cubic spline interpolation: a review. Columbia University Computer Science Technical Reports, 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rao SS, Patcharatrakul T. Diagnosis and treatment of dyssynergic defecation. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;22(3):423–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rao SS, Ozturk R, Laine L. Clinical utility of diagnostic tests for constipation in adults: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2005;100(7):1605–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rao SS. Constipation: evaluation and treatment of colonic and anorectal motility disorders. Gastroenterol Clin N Am. 2007;36(3):687–711 x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bharucha AE, Rao SS. An update on anorectal disorders for gastroenterologists. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(1):37–45.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Videlock EJ, Lembo A, Cremonini F. Diagnostic testing for dyssynergic defecation in chronic constipation: meta-analysis. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25(6):509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jung KW, Joo S, Yang DH, Yoon IJ, Seo SY, Kim SO, et al. A novel high-resolution anorectal manometry parameter based on a three-dimensional integrated pressurized volume of a spatiotemporal plot, for predicting balloon expulsion in asymptomatic normal individuals. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2014;26(7):937–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bharucha AE, Croak AJ, Gebhart JB, Berglund LJ, Seide BM, Zinsmeister AR, et al. Comparison of rectoanal axial forces in health and functional defecatory disorders. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2006;290(6):G1164–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    •• Seo, M., et al., A high-resolution anorectal manometry parameter based on integrated pressurized volume: a study based on 204 male patients with constipation and 26 controls. Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2018: p. e13376. This study demonstrated that the novel integraed pressurized volume (IPV) parameters derived from high-resolution anorectal manometry and the combination of IPVs via partial least square regression were more significantly correlated with balloon expulsion time than the conventional parameters. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wold S, Sjöström M, Eriksson L. PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2001;58(2):109–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jolliffe IT. Principal component analysis. 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chun H, Keles S. Sparse partial least squares regression for simultaneous dimension reduction and variable selection. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol. 2010;72(1):3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ratuapli SK, Bharucha AE, Noelting J, Harvey DM, Zinsmeister AR. Phenotypic identification and classification of functional defecatory disorders using high-resolution anorectal manometry. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(2):314–322.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    • Seo M, et al. Sa1710 predicting a responsiveness to biofeedback therapy based on three-dimensional integrated pressurized volume in female patients with dyssynergic defecation using high-resolution anorectal manometry. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85(5):AB249 This study showed that a combination of IPV parameters is superior to conventional parameters in the prediction of responsiveness to biofeedback therapy.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Felt-Bersma RJ, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SG. Anorectal function investigations in incontinent and continent patients. Differences and discriminatory value. Dis Colon Rectum. 1990;33(6):479–85 discussion 485-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    • Carrington EV, et al. High-resolution anorectal manometry measures are more accurate than conventional measures in detecting anal hypocontractility in women with fecal incontinence. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018; This study demonstrated that the “anal contractile integral” exhibits significantly improved diagnostic accuracy for identification of patients with fecal incontinence using high-resolution anorectal manometric data.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coss-Adame E, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of high-definition anorectal manometry and pressure topography analyses in healthy subjects. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;13(6):1143–50.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    •• Zifan A, Ledgerwood-Lee M, Mittal RK. A predictive model to identify patients with fecal incontinence based on high-definition anorectal manometry. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;14(12):1788–1796.e2 This study demonstrated that the prediction model using combination of pressure values, anal sphincter area, and asymmetry index yield an area under curve value of 1.0 for discriminating patients with fecal incontinence versus control subjects.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mion, F., Garros A., Brochard C., Vitton V., Ropert A., Bouvier M., Damon H., Siproudhis L., Roman S. 3D high-definition anorectal manometry: values obtained in asymptomatic volunteers, fecal incontinence and chronic constipation. Results of a prospective multicenter study (NOMAD). Neurogastroenterol Motil, 2017.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lee TH, Bharucha AE. How to perform and interpret a high-resolution anorectal manometry test. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;22(1):46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carrington EV, Heinrich H, Knowles CH, Rao SS, Fox M, Scott SM, et al. Methods of anorectal manometry vary widely in clinical practice: results from an international survey. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017;29(8):e13016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myeongsook Seo
    • 1
  • Segyeong Joo
    • 2
  • Kee Wook Jung
    • 3
  • Eun Mi Song
    • 3
  • Satish S. C. Rao
    • 4
  • Seung-Jae Myung
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Internal MedicineKonkuk University Chungju HospitalChungjuSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Biomedical Engineering, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.Department of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical CenterUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulSouth Korea
  4. 4.Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of MedicineAugusta UniversityAugustaUSA

Personalised recommendations