BackgroundThis manuscript summarizes consensus reached by the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) for the performance, terminology used, and interpretation of anorectal function testing including anorectal manometry (focused on high‐resolution manometry), the rectal sensory test, and the balloon expulsion test. Based on these measurements, a classification system for disorders of anorectal function is proposed.MethodsTwenty‐nine working group members (clinicians/academics in the field of gastroenterology, coloproctology, and gastrointestinal physiology) were invited to six face‐to‐face and three remote meetings to derive consensus between 2014 and 2018.Key recommendationsThe IAPWG protocol for the performance of anorectal function testing recommends a standardized sequence of maneuvers to test rectoanal reflexes, anal tone and contractility, rectoanal coordination, and rectal sensation. Major findings not seen in healthy controls defined by the classification are as follows: rectoanal areflexia, anal hypotension and hypocontractility, rectal hyposensitivity, and hypersensitivity. Minor and inconclusive findings that can be present in health and require additional information prior to diagnosis include anal hypertension and dyssynergia.Conclusions and InferencesThis framework introduces the IAPWG protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function based on objective physiological measurement. The use of a common language to describe results of diagnostic tests, standard operating procedures, and a consensus classification system is designed to bring much‐needed standardization to these techniques.

No abstract

No abstract

DRKS00007768; Pre-results.

Introduction: In the literature, data on the effects of gender and age on the pressure data of anorectal manometry differ. Possible reasons are investigation of only small numbers of healthy people and comparison of only 2 groups with large age differences. In addition, data about the influence of gender or age on anorectal sensation are sparse. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to determine the influence of gender and age on anorectal manometry in a large healthy female and male cohort spanning a great age range. Methods: Anorectal manometry was performed in 72 women and 74 men with a median age of 64 years in both groups (ranges: women 22–90 years; men 23–88 years). We determined mean anal resting and squeeze pressure as well as minimal rectal balloon volume for perception and for urge/desire to defecate. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze for gender differences, regression analysis to search for age influences. Results: Squeeze pressure (p = 0.007) and perception threshold (p < 0.001) are significantly lower in females, while the mean resting pressure and urge threshold are similar in females and males. Mean resting pressure (women p < 0.0001; men p = 0.03) and mean squeeze pressure decrease (women p < 0.0001; men p = 0.004) with age. An age-related increase in sensory thresholds (= decreased rectal sensitivity) is only seen in females (perception threshold p = 0.01; urge threshold p = 0.04). Conclusion: Most of the parameters measured by anorectal manometry (anal canal pressure, sensory thresholds) are influenced by gender and age. Therefore, the results of anorectal manometry must be interpreted in relation to sex- and age-adapted normal values.

Previous studies have demonstrated an increased gastroesophageal reflux after the ingestion of high-proof alcoholic beverages in normal subjects. Data on gastroesophageal reflux with usual amounts of low-proof alcoholic beverages are not available. The effect of white wine (7.5% v/v, pH 3.2) and beer (7.0% v/v, pH 4.5) was compared with water, a nonalcoholic beverage of pH 3.2, and an ethanol solution (7.5% v/v, pH 7.6) using ambulatory pH measurement in healthy volunteers. The fraction of time at pH < 4 in the first hour after ingestion of 300 ml white wine (median 13.2%) was significantly increased compared with beer (3.6%; P < 0.01), water (0.9%; P < 0.001), ethanol (1.3%; P < 0.001), and the nonalcoholic beverage (0.9%; P < 0.05). Beer provoked significantly more gastroesophageal reflux than water (P < 0.01). It is concluded that white wine and beer induce gastroesophageal reflux, which is neither related to their ethanol content nor to their pH. The mechanism for this effect remains to be identified.

Background: Patients with reflux disease often complain of heartburn after ingestion of coffee. Induction of gastro‐oesophageal reflux has been demonstrated by pH‐metry following the intake of coffee in healthy volunteers. The reflux was reduced when the coffee had undergone a decaffeination process. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of decaffeination of coffee on reflux in patients with reflux disease. Methods: Seventeen reflux patients underwent two oesophageal 3‐h pH measurements. The patients received, in a double‐blind study design in a randomized order, 300 mL of either regular or decaffeinated coffee together with a standardized breakfast. The fraction time oesophageal pH < 4 was calculated during the three postprandial hours. Results: For regular coffee the fraction time was calculated to a median of 17.9% with a range of 0.7–56.6%. The fraction time was significantly reduced to 3.1% (0–49.9%) after ingestion of decaffeinated coffee. Conclusion: The amount of gastro‐oesophageal reflux induced by the intake of regular coffee in patients with reflux disease can be reduced by the decaffeination of coffee.

No abstract