Evaluation of 153 Asymptomatic Subjects Using the Anopress Portable Anal Manometry Device

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.

Systematic evaluation of cough-anorectal pressure responses in health and in fecal incontinence: A high-resolution anorectal manometry study

BACKGROUND

Anorectal manometry is the most commonly performed test of anorectal function. The cough-anorectal response is frequently assessed as part of a routine manometric investigation but has not previously been the subject of detailed analysis. This study systematically examined anorectal pressure responses to cough in health and evaluated the impact of parity and symptoms of fecal incontinence (FI) on measurements.

METHODS

High-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) traces from nulliparous (n = 25) and parous (n = 25) healthy volunteers (HV: aged 41, range 18-64), and 57 parous patients with FI (age 47, range 28-72) were retrospectively reviewed. Cough-anorectal pressure responses were analyzed between groups by qualitative and quantitative approaches.

KEY RESULTS

In health, traditional anal pressure measurements ("rest" and "squeeze") were similar between nulliparous and parous women. In contrast, incremental anal-rectal pressure difference during cough significantly differed: nulliparous 42 mm Hg (95% CI: 21-64) vs. parous 6 mm Hg (-14-25), P < 0.036). This measure also differed significantly between nulliparous HVs and patients with FI (-2 mm Hg (95% CI: -15-12), P < 0.001), but not between parous HVs and FI. Qualitatively, a color-contour trace resembling a "spear" in the upper anal canal was observed uniquely in FI. Of 25 patients with normal anal function by traditional measures, cough parameters were abnormal in 52%.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Novel HR-ARM measures during coughing revealed differences in anal function between nulliparous and parous HV, and patients with FI, which were not detected by traditional measures. Cough-anorectal measurements may improve manometric yield, though clinical utility would require assessment by longitudinal studies.

Evaluation of the Anopress® device in assessment of obstetric anal sphincter injuries in a specialist urogynaecology service

OBJECTIVES

THD Anopress® is a new portable anal manometry device which can be used in an outpatient clinic setting. In this study, we aimed to: STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis was conducted of women with OASI seen in a specialist clinic at 3- and 6-months post-delivery from November 2016 to December 2019. 72 women who attended their 6-month appointment and underwent anal manometry with Anopress were included. St Mark's Faecal incontinence score (FI) was calculated and for the purpose of analysis patients were classified into two groups - FI score less than 5 and 5 or more. EAUSS findings were classified as sphincter defect or no defect. RAVP and MSP were measured with Anopress and compared with the variables (symptoms and EAUSS findings) using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

A total of 72 women were included in the study. There were 19 (27 %), 41 (57 %), 6 (8 %) and 6 (8 %) 3a, 3b, 3c and 4th degree perineal tears respectively. The median RAVP was 17 mm Hg (Inter-Quartile Range 10.75-24 mmHg) and median MSP was 47.5 mm Hg (IQR 33-68 mmHg). 38 patients (53 %) had a demonstrable sphincter defect on EAUSS. 37 patients (51.3 %) had FI score < 5 and 35 patients (48.6 %) had FI score of 5 or more. RAVP and MSP were significantly lower with EAUSS demonstrable sphincter defect (p < 0.001). Symptom severity correlated with RAVP (p = 0.016) though its correlation with MSP was not statistically significant (p = 0.096).

CONCLUSION

Anopress seems promising in the assessment of anal sphincter function in women with OASI and can potentially make anal manometry testing easily accessible to urogynecologists.

The London Classification: Improving Characterization and Classification of Anorectal Function with Anorectal Manometry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Objective measurement of anorectal sensorimotor function is a requisite component in the clinical evaluation of patients with intractable symptoms of anorectal dysfunction. Regrettably, the utility of the most established and widely employed investigations for such measurement (anorectal manometry (ARM), rectal sensory testing and the balloon expulsion test) has been limited by wide variations in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

This article summarizes the recently published International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) consensus and London Classification of anorectal disorders, together with relevant allied literature, to provide guidance on the indications for, equipment, protocol, measurement definitions and results interpretation for ARM, rectal sensory testing and the balloon expulsion test. The London Classification is a standardized method and nomenclature for description of alterations in anorectal motor and sensory function using office-based investigations, adoption of which should bring much needed harmonization of practice.

Comparison between high-resolution water-perfused anorectal manometry and THD® Anopress anal manometry: a prospective observational study

AIM

Anorectal physiology tests provide a functional assessment of the anal canal. The aim of this study was to compare the results generated by standard high-resolution water-perfused manometry (WPM) with the newer THD^® Anopress manometry system.

METHOD

This was a prospective observational study. Conventional manometry was carried out using a water-perfused catheter with high-resolution manometry and compared with the Anopress system with air-filled catheters. All patients underwent the two procedures successively in a randomized order. Time to arrive at the resting pressure plateau, resting, squeeze, straining pressure and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain were recorded. A qualitative analysis of the two devices was performed.

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2017, 60 patients were recruited. The time from insertion of the catheter to arriving at the resting pressure plateau was significantly lower with the Anopress compared with WPM: 12 s [interquartile range (IQR) 10-17 s] versus 100 s (IQR 67-121 s) (P < 0.001). A strong correlation between the manometric values of WPM and the Anopress was observed. Both procedures were well tolerated, although the VAS score for insertion of the WPM catheter was significantly higher. The Anopress was easier to use and more time-efficient than the WPM.

CONCLUSION

The pressure values obtained with Anopress correlated well with those of conventional manometry. The Anopress has the advantage of being less time-consuming, user-friendly and better tolerated by patients.

Acceptability, effectiveness and safety of a Renew® anal insert in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

Restorative proctocolectomy has gained acceptance in the surgical management of medically refractive ulcerative colitis and cancer prevention in familial adenomatous polyposis. Incontinence following restorative proctocolectomy occurs in up to 25% of patients overnight. The Renew^® insert is an inert single-use device which acts as an anal plug. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the Renew^® insert in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy. The device has yet to be assessed in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy.

METHOD

This was a prospective study exploring the acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the Renew^® insert in improving incontinence in patients who had undergone restorative proctocolectomy. A total of 15 patients with incontinence were asked to use the Renew^® insert for 14 days following their standard care. The Incontinence Questionnaire-Bowels was used pre- and posttreatment to assess response and patients were asked to report the perceived acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the device at the end of the trial.

RESULTS

The device was acceptable to 8/15 (53%) of patients and was effective in 6/15 (40%). Only 2/15 (13%) of patients raised any safety concerns, and these were minor. The device was associated with a significant reduction in night seepage (P = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

In a small study, the Renew^® insert can be both acceptable and effective and is also associated with few safety concerns. It is also associated with significant reductions in night-time seepage.