Anorectal Manometry and Defecography in the Diagnosis of Fecal Incontinence

Department of Gastroenterology, Heinrich-Heine University, Düssldorf, Germany.
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology (Impact Factor: 3.5). 01/1992; 13(6):661-5. DOI: 10.1097/00004836-199112000-00010
Source: PubMed


We carried out anorectal manometry and defecography prospectively in 43 consecutive patients with fecal incontinence. A subgroup of 17 patients with severe incontinence was identified radiologically by a short and incompletely closed anal canal. In these patients, the anal resting pressure was significantly lower than in the rest of the group (34.9 +/- 11.4 mm Hg versus 60.0 +/- 25.7 mm Hg, respectively; p less than 0.01). The anorectal angle did not change in 24 patients during squeezing, indicating a dysfunction of the puborectalis muscle. Manometric data did not differ between this subgroup and patients with a more acute anorectal angle during voluntary sphincter contraction. This indicates that the anal pressures recorded manometrically do not reflect the function of a muscular component that is important in the maintenance of fecal continence. We conclude that anorectal manometry and defecography are complementary diagnostic tools in the investigation of patients with fecal incontinence.

5 Reads

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anismus is thought to be a cause of chronic constipation by producing outlet obstruction. The underlying mechanism is paradoxical contraction of the anal sphincter or puborectalis muscle. However, paradoxical sphincter contraction (PSC) also occurs in healthy controls, so anismus may be diagnosed too often because it may be based on a non-specific finding related to untoward conditions during the anorectal examination. To investigate the pathophysiological importance of PSC found at anorectal manometry in constipated patients and in patients with stool incontinence. Digital rectal examination and anorectal manometry were performed in 102 chronically constipated patients, 102 patients with stool incontinence, and in 18 controls without anorectal disease. In 120 of the 222 subjects defaecography was also performed. Paradoxical sphincter contraction was defined as a sustained increase in sphincter pressure during straining. Anismus was assumed when PSC was present on anorectal manometry and digital rectal examination and the anorectal angle did not widen on defaecography. Manometric PSC occurred about twice as often in constipated patients as in incontinent patients (41.2% versus 25.5%, p < 0.017) and its prevalence was similar in incontinent patients and controls (25.5% versus 22.2%). Oroanal or rectosigmoid transit times in constipated patients with and without PSC did not differ significantly (total 64.6 (8.9) hours versus 54.2 (8.1) hours; rectosigmoid 14.9 (2.4) hours versus 13.8 (2.5) hours). Paradoxical sphincter contraction is a common finding in healthy controls as well as in patients with chronic constipation and stool incontinence. Hence, PSC is primarily a laboratory artefact and true anismus is rare.
    Gut 08/1997; 41(2):258-62. DOI:10.1136/gut.41.2.258 · 14.66 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The intermittent loss of oil or stool ("spotting") is an adverse effect that occurs in patients taking orlistat; the pathophysiology is unknown. This study was designed to investigate the local effects of orlistat, free fatty acids, and the effects of the physical properties of rectal contents on anorectal function and continence. Anorectal physiology and continence function were assessed in ten healthy patients after the application of four test enemas: 1) high-viscosity stool substitute, 2) stool substitute with free fatty acid, 3) low-viscosity oil with placebo, 4) oil with orlistat. Rectal function and capacity were assessed by barostat techniques. Anal resting pressure, squeeze pressure, and squeeze duration were assessed by manometry. A retention test was performed using the same enemas as a quantitative assessment of continence. Orlistat and free fatty acid had no adverse effects on anorectal function or continence. For each enema, the maximum volume retained correlated with rectal capacity (r = 0.85; P < 0.01). Continence during rectal filling was better maintained for high-viscosity stool substitute than low-viscosity oil enemas (P < 0.03). Patients able to maintain effective squeeze pressure retained more of the low-viscosity enemas than those with short squeeze duration (P < 0.01); in contrast, the volume retained of high-viscosity enemas was unaffected by anal sphincter function. The physical properties of rectal contents, rectal capacity, and voluntary anal sphincter function have effects on continence function in healthy patients. The occurrence of spotting may depend on both intrinsic anorectal function and the effects of orlistat on the volume and physical properties of stool.
    Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 01/2005; 47(12):2147-56. DOI:10.1007/s10350-004-0739-0 · 3.75 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications