What is the optimum methodology for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure?

There are conflicting recommendations from consensus groups with regard to the assessment of resting anal sphincter pressure. Our aims were to evaluate and compare the performance of three recognized techniques for the clinical measurement of resting anal sphincter pressure. METHODS: In each of 54 patients presenting for anorectal manometry, and suffering from constipation or fecal incontinence, three different techniques for assessment of resting anal pressure were undertaken, namely stationary, stationary pull-through and slow pull-through techniques. Resting anal sphincter pressures were compared between groups and between techniques. RESULTS: Mean resting anal sphincter pressure was lower with stationary, compared with stationary pull-through and slow pull-through, techniques (P < or = 0.002). Resting pressure was higher for constipation than incontinence regardless of technique used (P < 0.00001). The techniques were highly correlated with each other (P < 0.0001). The stationary pull-through technique conferred a minor advantage in the discrimination between constipation and incontinence. The stationary technique required significantly less time for completion (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Resting anal sphincter pressure varies according to the specific technique employed, yet each technique is valid. The stationary pull-through technique confers a minor advantage in clinical discrimination of patients, but the stationary technique is more time-efficient. Standardized anal sphincter testing should be established to enable inter-laboratory comparisons.     

Distension technique influences the relationship between colonic and rectal hypersensitivity in irritable bowel syndrome

In irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), it remains unclear whether rectal hypersensitivity is a 'marker' of colonic hypersensitivity. Our aim was to examine the relation between colonic and rectal sensitivity in IBS patients, comprising phasic and ramp distension techniques. Twenty IBS patients and 12 healthy subjects (N) underwent stepwise ramp and random phasic barostat distensions in the colon and rectum in random order. The sensory threshold pressure (ramp distension) and the visual analogue scale score (VAS, phasic distension), for pain and non-pain, were recorded. Colonic thresholds were lower, and VAS scores were generally higher, for pain and non-pain sensitivities in IBS compared to N. Rectal thresholds were lower, and VAS scores were higher, for pain but not for non-pain, in IBS compared to N. In IBS, for phasic distension, there was good correlation between the colon and rectum for non-pain (e.g. at 16 mmHg, r=0.59, P=0.006) and pain (r=0.60, P=0.006) sensitivities. In contrast, there was no significant correlation between the colon and rectum for ramp distension. In conclusion, colonic and rectal sensitivity in IBS are correlated in response to phasic but not ramp barostat distensions. The rectum serves as a legitimate 'window' for evaluating colonic hypersensitivity in IBS, provided that phasic distensions are employed.