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.

The study provides a large healthy volunteer dataset and parameters of traditional measures of anorectal function. A number of novel phenomena are appreciated, the significance of which will require further analysis and comparisons with patient populations.

Objective The diagnostic accuracy of anorectal manometry (AM), which is necessary to diagnose functional defaecatory disorders (FDD), is unknown. Using blinded analysis and standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy (STARD), we evaluated whether AM could discriminate between asymptomatic controls and patients with functional constipation (FC). Design Derived line-plots of anorectal pressure profiles during simulated defaecation were independently analysed in random order by 3 expert observers blinded to health status in 85 women with FC and 85 age-matched asymptomatic healthy volunteers (HV). Using accepted criteria, these pressure profiles were characterized as normal (i.e. increased rectal pressure coordinated with anal relaxation) or types I-IV dyssynergia. Inter-observer agreement and diagnostic accuracy were determined. Results Blinded consensus-based assessment disclosed a normal pattern in 16/170 (9%) of all participants and only 11/85 (13%) HV. The combined frequency of dyssynergic patterns (I-IV) was very similar in FC (80/85 [94%]) and HV (74/85 [87%]). Type I dyssynergia (‘paradoxical’ contraction) was less prevalent in FC (17/85 [20%] than HV (31/85 [36.5%], p=0.03). After statistical correction, only type IV dyssynergia was moderately useful for discriminating between FC (39/85 [46%] and HV 17/85 [20%], p=0.001, PPV=70.0%, positive LR=2.3). Inter-observer agreement was substantial or moderate for identifying a normal pattern, dyssynergia types I and IV, and FDD, and fair for types II and III. Conclusions While the interpretation of AM patterns is reproducible, nearly 90% of HV have a pattern that is currently regarded as “abnormal” by AM. Hence AM is of limited utility for distinguishing between FC and HV.

Faecal incontinence and evacuation disorders are common, impair quality of life and incur substantial economic costs worldwide. As symptoms alone are poor predictors of underlying pathophysiology and aetiology, diagnostic tests of anorectal function could facilitate patient management in those cases that are refractory to conservative therapies. In the past decade, several major technological advances have improved our understanding of anorectal structure, coordination and sensorimotor function. This Consensus Statement provides the reader with an appraisal of the current indications, study performance characteristics, clinical utility, strengths and limitations of the most widely available tests of anorectal structure (ultrasonography and MRI) and function (anorectal manometry, neurophysiological investigations, rectal distension techniques and tests of evacuation, including defecography). Additionally, this article provides our consensus on the clinical relevance of these tests.

The initial hypothesis that the mechanism of SNS was primarily peripheral motor neurostimulation is not supported by the majority of recent studies. Due to the large body of evidence demonstrating effects outside of the anorectum, it appears likely that the influence of SNS on anorectal function occurs at a pelvic afferent or central level.