What is the relationship between perineal descent and anal mucosal electrosensitivity?

Rectal hyposensitivity: evaluation of anal sensation in female patients with refractory constipation with and without faecal incontinence

Rectal hyposensitivity (RH) is commonly found in patients with intractable constipation, faecal incontinence or both. Anal sensation may also be blunted in these conditions. We aimed to determine whether RH is associated with anal hyposensitivity, which may reflect a combined viscero-somatic neuropathy. One hundred and fifty-eight female patients with chronic constipation underwent physiological investigation including rectal sensation to volumetric balloon distension, and distal anal mucosal sensation to electrostimulation. Data were also obtained from 32 healthy female volunteers. Anal mucosal electrosensory thresholds were significantly higher in patients compared with volunteers (median: 2.4 mA, range: 0.4-19.6 vs 1.1 mA, range: 0.1-4.2, respectively), although the patient group was older (P < 0.0001), but there was no difference (P = 0.572) in the incidence of blunted anal sensation between those with normal rectal sensation (n = 113, 20% abnormal) and RH (n = 45, 24% abnormal). Irrespective of rectal sensory function, there was a strong association between symptom duration (P = 0.012) and anal hyposensitivity. One-fifth of constipated female patients had evidence of diminished anal sensation. However, the presence of RH was not associated with an increased frequency of anal hyposensitivity, thereby suggesting that different aetiopathogenic mechanisms underlie the development of anal and rectal hyposensitivity. Further studies in carefully selected, homogenous patient populations are necessary to elucidate these mechanisms.

Assessments of anal canal sensitivity in patients with soiling 5 years or more after colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and ileal J pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis

INTRODUCTION

To clarify the significance of anal canal sensitivity contribution to soiling in patients after ileal J pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) for ulcerative colitis (UC), we studied the sensory function of the anal canal.

METHODS

Forty patients with UC who had undergone IPAA with ileostomy closure at least 60 to 132 months (mean 103.6 months) previously, and who had no preoperative or postoperative complications were recruited. They were divided into two groups: group A [n = 26; patients without soiling (16 males, 10 females; ages 15-49 years, mean 36.6 years)] and group B [n = 14; patients with soiling (10 men, 4 women; ages 24-56 years, mean 40.9 years)] compared with group C [n = 28; control subjects (18 men, 10 women; aged 19-49 years, mean 38.5 years)]. Patients with soiling were also divided into three groups (B1, rare soiling; B2, occasional soiling; B3, frequent soiling). The anal canal sensitivity threshold was measured using an anal canal electrosensitivity test (ACEST). The measurement point of anal canal was divided into three parts: lower part [1 cm below the dentate line (DL), middle part (just on the DL), and upper part (1 cm above the DL]. A small electric current from a constant-current generator was passed between the electrodes until the patient felt a sensation often described as tingling or pulsing. The threshold of sensitivity was assessed in the upper, middle, and lower parts of the anal canal.

RESULTS

In patients of group C, recording at the middle part of the anal canal showed the best results. The anal canal sensitivity threshold of group B was significantly higher than those of groups A and C at the upper and middle parts (P < 0.0001, respectively). There were no significant differences at the lower part among groups. The anal canal sensitivity threshold of subgroup B3 was significantly higher than those of groups B1 or B2 at both the upper part (P = 0.0002, P = 0.0038, respectively) and middle part (P = 0.0001, P = 0.0480, respectively). There were no significant differences at the lower part among groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACEST shows significantly lower sensitivity in the proximal and middle anal canal in IPAA patients with soiling.

Constipation and fecal incontinence in the elderly

Although constipation and fecal incontinence are common symptoms in the elderly, relatively little research has been done to differentiate physiologic changes in rectoanal function resulting from aging and pathologic changes resulting from diseases occurring as patients age. Certain physiologic changes occur in many older patients and may predispose them to the development of constipation or fecal incontinence. These symptoms need the same thoughtful evaluation and management in the elderly as in younger patients. Results of therapy often can be good, leading to alleviation of suffering and the ability to lead a fuller life.

Proceedings of the American Urogynecologic Society Multidisciplinary Symposium on Defecatory Disorders

The Multidisciplinary Symposium on Defecatory Disorders was created to delineate the breadth of defecatory disorders and propose investigations to address identified knowledge deficits. Seven experts in defecatory disorders and 24 members of the American Urogynecologic Society were invited. The experts provided brief summaries of the scope of defecatory disorders from the perspectives of their specialties. The group then divided into 3 subgroups that focused on pathophysiology, imaging, and evaluation and treatment. Defecatory disorders, including anal incontinence and constipation, are common among women of all ages. Determination of their prevalence is complicated by a lack of standardized definitions. Defecatory disorders carry lengthy differential diagnoses. Imaging studies and anorectal testing, although not standardized, can aid in distinguishing different causes of dysfunction. The lack of uniformity in diagnosis and evaluation compromises comparisons of different treatments. Standardization of diagnoses and diagnostic modalities is essential to the design of meaningful evaluations of treatments for defecatory disorders.

Management of pelvic organ prolapse

The wide variety of available pessaries permits rather precise choice of pessary to meet a given patient's needs. Different approaches are reviewed. A paradigm for choosing a surgical repair based on the fascial and muscular support defects, as well as the functional demands and limitations of the patient is presented.

Abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy: a new approach for correction of posterior compartment defects and perineal descent associated with vaginal vault prolapse

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to assess a modification of abdominal sacral colpopexy in 19 patients.

STUDY DESIGN

The rectovaginal space was dissected to the superior aspect of the posterior vaginal fascia still contiguous with the perineal body. Mersilene (Ethicon, Somerville, N.J.) mesh was sutured to this fascia and along the entire posterior vaginal wall. Patients with vault prolapse, perineal descent, and associated rectoceles or enteroceles are reported. Outcome measures included bowel symptoms and pelvic organ prolapse staging. Defecography was performed in three patients. Wilcoxon signed rank analysis was used for comparison of prolapse measures.

RESULTS

Mean follow-up was 11 weeks. Bowel symptoms improved in 8 of 11 women. No subjects had greater than stage II prolapse postoperatively and median improvement in stage was 3 (range 2 to 4). The mean decrease in the genital hiatus measurement was 3.13 +/- 1.25 (range 2 to 6) cm. Postoperative defecography documented correction of rectoceles and enteroceles and improvement in perineal descent with straining.

CONCLUSIONS

Abdominal sacral colpoperineopexy is effective surgery for vaginal vault prolapse associated with perineal descent and posterior vaginal defects.

Anal sensitivity test: what does it measure and do we need it? Cause or derivative of anorectal complaints

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to determine the anal sensitivity in controls and in different patient groups and to establish factors that determine anal sensitivity.

METHODS

Anorectal function tests were performed in 387 patients with different anorectal diseases. Anal sensitivity was measured in 36 controls. Anal sensitivity was measured by means of mucosal electrosensitivity (MES) using a catheter with two electrodes placed in the anal canal. A constant current (square wave stimuli 100 microsec, pulses per second) was increased stepwise from 1 to 20 mAmp until the threshold sensation was reached. Other tests used were anal manometry (maximum basal pressure, maximum squeeze pressure, rectal compliance (maximum rectal volume and pressure), endosonography (submucosal thickness), defects and thickness of internal and external sphincter), electromyography (maximum contraction pattern, Grade 1 (solitary contractions) to Grade 4 (interference pattern)), and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency. Multiple regression analysis was performed. It was postulated that age, local conditions (anal scars, anal fissures, hemorrhoids, mucosal prolapse, proctitis, sphincter thickness and defects, and submucosal thickness), and neurologic factors could influence anal sensitivity.

RESULTS

Controls had an MES of 3.4 +/- 1.7. MES was significantly increased compared with controls in patients with fecal incontinence, soiling, hemorrhoids, mucosal prolapse, constipation, anal scars, anal surgery, and sphincter defects; patients with fecal incontinence had the highest MES (6.7 +/- 4.3; P < 0.0001). Patients with anal fissures and proctitis showed no differences compared with controls. MES correlated significantly with age (R = 0.29), maximum basal pressure (R = -0.29), maximum squeeze pressure (R = -0.32), submucosal thickness (R = 0.19), maximum contraction pattern (R = -0.39), single-fiber electromyography (R = 0.39), and maximum rectal volume and pressure (0.14). Multiple regression analysis showed that age, internal sphincter defects, and submucosal thickness significantly influenced anal sensitivity, but explained only 10 percent of the variance.

CONCLUSION

Anal sensitivity is diminished in all patients with anorectal diseases except for anal fissures and proctitis. There are correlations with other anorectal function tests. Anal sensitivity is determined for 10 percent by age, internal sphincter defects, and thickness of the submucosa. Anal sensitivity measurement, therefore, has limited clinical value and should be used in conjunction with other tests in a research setting.