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.

Background/Aim: Patients with fecal incontinence (FI) have lower anal resting (MRP) and squeeze (MSP) pressure and an impaired sensitivity compared to healthy people. However, whether anorectal manometry (ARM) can separate precisely between health and disease is discussed controversially. The aim was to evaluate the accuracy of ARM in a huge cohort of patients and controls. Methods: ARM was obtained in 144 controls and in 559 FI patients. MRP, MSP, and balloon volume at first perception (BVP) and urge sensation (BVU) were determined. Receiver operating curve analysis was used to determine optimal cut-offs and sensitivity, specificity and accuracy calculated. Results: FI patients showed lower MRP, MSP, BVU (p < 0.001) and a higher BVP (p = 0.007). Deterioration of the ARM parameter increased with FI severity. ARM demonstrated an excellent sensitivity (91.4%) and accuracy (85.8%), but only a moderate specificity (62.5%). The sensitivity of ARM rose with FI severity. The pressure data showed higher sensitivity and accuracy than the sensory data despite comparable specificity. Conclusions: Sensitivity and accuracy of single ARM parameters is only moderate for the pressure data and poor for the sensory data. In contrast, ARM demonstrated an excellent sensitivity, a moderate specificity, and a convincing accuracy justifying its use in clinical routine.

No abstract

No abstract