A multicenter study of anorectal pressures and rectal sensation measured with portable manometry in healthy women and men

Fissurectomy with mucosal advancement flap anoplasty: The end of a dogma?

INTRODUCTION

The goal was to compare fissurectomy with mucosal advancement flap anoplasty to fissurectomy alone in the surgical treatment of anal fissure.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study included patients who underwent surgery in 2019 for solitary, idiopathic, non-infected, posterior anal fissure, after failure of medical treatment. The choice to perform advancement flap anoplasty was based on surgeon preference and did not depend on the fissure itself. The main endpoint was the time to relief of pain.

RESULTS

Of 599 fissurectomies performed during the study period, 226 patients (37.6% women, mean age 41.7±12.0 years old) underwent fissurectomy alone (n=182) or associated with advancement flap anoplasty (n=44). The two groups differed as to their sex ratio (33.5 vs. 54.5% women, P=0.01), body mass index (25.3±4.0 vs. 23.6±3.9, P=0.013) and Bristol score (3.2 vs. 3.4, P=0.038). Time to relief of pain, time to disappearance of bleeding and time to healing were 1.1 (0.5-2.3), 1.0 (0.5-2.1) and 2.0 (1.1-3.6) months, respectively. The rate of healing was 93.8% and the complication rate was 6.2%. The differences between the two groups for these outcomes were not statistically significant. The risk factors associated with absence of healing were age ≥ 40 years (Odds ratio (OR): 3.84; 95% CI, 1.12-17.68) and pre-surgical duration of fissure<35.6 weeks (OR: 6.54; 95% CI: 1.69-43.21).

CONCLUSION

Mucosal advancement flap anoplasty does not provide any added value to fissurectomy alone.

Optimizing the Utility of Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosis and Therapy: A Roundtable Review and Recommendations

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Anorectal manometry (ARM) is a comprehensive diagnostic tool for evaluating patients with constipation, fecal incontinence, or anorectal pain; however, it is not widely utilized for reasons that remain unclear. The aim of this roundtable discussion was to critically examine the current clinical practices of ARM and biofeedback therapy by physicians and surgeons in both academic and community settings.

METHODS

Leaders in medical and surgical gastroenterology and physical therapy with interest in anorectal disorders were surveyed regarding practice patterns and utilization of these technologies. Subsequently, a roundtable was held to discuss survey results, explore current diagnostic and therapeutic challenges with these technologies, review the literature, and generate consensus-based recommendations.

RESULTS

ARM identifies key pathophysiological abnormalities such as dyssynergic defecation, anal sphincter weakness, or rectal sensory dysfunction, and is a critical component of biofeedback therapy, an evidence-based treatment for patients with dyssynergic defecation and fecal incontinence. Additionally, ARM has the potential to enhance health-related quality of life and reduce healthcare costs. However, it has significant barriers that include a lack of education and training of healthcare providers regarding the utility and availability of ARM and biofeedback procedures, as well as challenges with condition-specific testing protocols and interpretation. Additional barriers include understanding when to perform, where to refer, and how to use these technologies, and confusion over billing practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Overcoming these challenges with appropriate education, training, collaborative research, and evidence-based guidelines for ARM testing and biofeedback therapy could significantly enhance patient care of anorectal disorders.

Using a footstool does not aid simulated defecation in undifferentiated constipation: A randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

The use of a footstool has been advocated to optimize posture when sitting on the toilet and thus facilitate bowel evacuation. We aimed to assess the alterations in defecatory posture, and the changes in simulated defecation with use of a footstool in patients with constipation.

METHODS

Forty-one patients (female 93%, mean 52 year, SD 14 year) with constipation referred to a tertiary neurogastroenterology unit were enrolled. A bowel questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Rome questionnaire were administered prior to anorectal manometry. Each patient underwent three rectal balloon expulsion tests in randomized order with no footstool, a 7-inch, and a 9-inch footstool. Additional assessments included angle between spine and femur, and visual analogue scales assessing ease of evacuation, urge to defecate, and discomfort with expulsion.

KEY RESULTS

Defecatory posture was significantly altered by footstool use, with progressive narrowing of the angle between the spine and femur as footstool height increased (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Compared with no footstool, the use of a footstool was not associated with a change in balloon expulsion time and there was no difference between the two footstool heights. Subjectively, no significant change was identified in any of the three perceptions of balloon expulsion between no footstool and footstool use.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Although the use of a footstool led to changes in defecatory posture, it did not improve subjective or objective measures of simulated defecation in patients with undifferentiated constipation. Therefore, the recommendation for its use during evacuation cannot be applied to all patients with constipation.

Review of the indications, methods, and clinical utility of anorectal manometry and the rectal balloon expulsion test

BACKGROUND

Anorectal manometry (ARM) comprehensively assesses anorectal sensorimotor functions.

PURPOSE

This review examines the indications, techniques, interpretation, strengths, and weaknesses of high-resolution ARM (HR-ARM), 3-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry (3D-HR-ARM), and portable ARM, and other assessments (i.e., rectal sensation and rectal balloon expulsion test) that are performed alongside manometry. It is based on a literature search of articles related to ARM in adults. HR-ARM and 3D-HR-ARM are useful for diagnosing defecatory disorders (DD), to identify anorectal sensorimotor dysfunction and guide management in patients with fecal incontinence (FI), constipation, megacolon, and megarectum; and to screen for anorectal structural (e.g., rectal intussusception) abnormalities. The rectal balloon expulsion test is a useful, low-cost, radiation-free, outpatient assessment tool for impaired evacuation that is performed and interpreted in conjunction with ARM. The anorectal function tests should be interpreted with reference to age- and sex-matched normal values, clinical features, and results of other tests. A larger database of technique-specific normal values and newer paradigms of analyzing anorectal pressure profiles will increase the precision and diagnostic utility of HR-ARM for identifying abnormal mechanisms of defecation and continence.

Faecal incontinence in adults

Faecal incontinence, which is defined by the unintentional loss of solid or liquid stool, has a worldwide prevalence of ≤7% in community-dwelling adults and can markedly impair quality of life. Nonetheless, many patients might not volunteer the symptom owing to embarrassment. Bowel disturbances, particularly diarrhoea, anal sphincter trauma (obstetrical injury or previous surgery), rectal urgency and burden of chronic illness are the main risk factors for faecal incontinence; others include neurological disorders, inflammatory bowel disease and pelvic floor anatomical disturbances. Faecal incontinence is classified by its type (urge, passive or combined), aetiology (anorectal disturbance, bowel symptoms or both) and severity, which is derived from the frequency, volume, consistency and nature (urge or passive) of stool leakage. Guided by the clinical features, diagnostic tests and therapies are implemented stepwise. When simple measures (for example, bowel modifiers such as fibre supplements, laxatives and anti-diarrhoeal agents) fail, anorectal manometry and other tests (endoanal imaging, defecography, rectal compliance and sensation, and anal neurophysiological tests) are performed as necessary. Non-surgical options (diet and lifestyle modification, behavioural measures, including biofeedback therapy, pharmacotherapy for constipation or diarrhoea, and anal or vaginal barrier devices) are often effective, especially in patients with mild faecal incontinence. Thereafter, perianal bulking agents, sacral neuromodulation and other surgeries may be considered when necessary.

Organizing and Developing a GI Motility Lab in Community Practice: Challenges and Rewards

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Neurogastroenterology and motility is a rapidly evolving subspecialty that encompasses over 33% of gastroenterological disorders, and up to 50% of referrals to gastroenterology practice. It includes common problems such as dysphagia, gastroesophageal reflux disease, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic constipation, gastroparesis, functional dyspepsia, gas/bloating, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, food intolerance and fecal incontinence Standard diagnostic tests such as endoscopy or imaging are normal in these conditions. To define the underlying mechanism(s)/etiology of these disorders, diagnostic motility tests are often required. These are best performed by well-trained personnel in a dedicated motility laboratory. Our purpose is to provide an up-to-date overview on how to organize and develop a motility laboratory based on our collective experiences in setting up such facilities in academia and community practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

A lack of knowledge, training and facilities for providing diagnostic motility tests has led to suboptimal patient care. A motility laboratory is the hub for diagnostic and therapeutic motility procedures. Common procedures include esophageal function tests such as esophageal manometry and pH monitoring, anorectal function tests suchlike anorectal manometry, neurophysiology and balloon expulsion, dysbiosis and food intolerance tests such as hydrogen/methane breath tests, and gastrointestinal transit assessment. These tests provide an accurate diagnosis and guide clinical management including use of medications, biofeedback therapy, neuromodulation, behavioral therapies, evidence-based dietary interventions and endoscopic or surgical procedures. Further, there have been recent developments in billing and coding of motility procedures and training requirements that are not well known. This review provides a stepwise approach on how to set-up a motility laboratory in the community or academic practice and includes the rationale, infrastructure, staffing needs, commonly performed motility tests and their clinical utility, billing and coding strategies, training needs and economic considerations for setting up this service.

Diagnostic Strategy and Tools for Identifying Defecatory Disorders

This article reviews the indications, techniques, interpretation, strengths, and weaknesses of tests (anal manometry, anal surface electromyography, rectal balloon expulsion test, barium and MRI defecography, assessment of rectal compliance and sensation, and colonic transit) that are used diagnose defecatory disorders in constipated patients. The selection of tests and the sequence in which they are performed should be individualized to and interpreted in the context of the clinical features. Because anorectal functions are affected by age, results should be interpreted with reference to age- and sex-matched normal values for the same technique.