A novel model used to compare water–perfused and solid–state anorectal manometry

Florisson, Joyce M.G.; Coolen, Johan; Bissett, Ian P.; Plank, Lindsay D.; Parry, Bryan R.; Menzi, E.; Merrie, Arend E. H.

doi:10.1007/s10151-006-0245-6

Cited by 15 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results obtained in Caucasians should be transferable to other ethnic populations such as Afro-Americans or Asians, but the normal range might be different. The normal range might also be slightly different with new recording equipment such as solid state sensors or high resolution manometry [50,51]. However, it is very unlikely that the influence of gender and age would not be seen in these methods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Gender and Age on Anorectal Function: Normal Values from Anorectal Manometry in a Large Caucasian Population

Gundling

Seidl²,

Scalercio³

et al. 2010

Digestion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Gender and Age on Anorectal Function: Normal Values from Anorectal Manometry in a Large Caucasian Population

Gundling

Seidl²,

Scalercio³

et al. 2010

Digestion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they compared HRM with water perfusion manometry. Alhough the comparison of solid state HRAM with water-perfused manometry indicates a good correlation in pressure data between the two techniques, it has been noted that patients with DD are less likely to be detected by the water-perfused technique due to its poor anatomical resolution [10,11] . Unsurprisingly, HRM reconfirmed dyssynergia in all but one patient.…”

Section: Conflict Of Interestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Standard Anorectal Manometry and High Resolution Manometry Patterns in Dyssynergic Patients

Soubra

Valestin

et al. 2014

Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To compare dyssynergic sub type patterns between SARM and HRM. METHODS: Patients with dyssynergic defecation diagnosed by ARM that had maintained the same stool patterns and frequency were re-evaluated with HRM while on waiting list for biofeedback training. Anorectal resting and squeezing pressure on the bed and commode were analyzed and compared between the two modalities. Paired t-test was used to compare the pressures and sensations. RESULTS: 25 dyssynergic patients diagnosed with SARM (F=21, age 41±12.9) underwent HRM. Twenty four patients had dyssynergia on HRM (96%). Twelve (48%) had similar patterns on≥one position, and five (20%) had similar patterns in both positions. When comparing between HRM and SARM, the maximum resting pressure (70 vs 55.6 mmHg p<0.01), anal straining on bed (73 vs 46.4 mHg, p<0.01), rectal straining on commode (107.4 vs 71.8 mmHg, p<0.01) and anal straining pressures on commode (76.3 vs 48.9 mmHg, p<0.01) significantly deferred between the exams respectively.

show abstract

“…However it has several disadvantages. It has a limited frequency response, is difficult to set up and use, needs skilled personnel for equipment maintenance, and it is prone to artefacts due to movement of the connecting tubing or air bubbles in the system [3]. The solid-state manometry (SSM) is good high frequency response, application in ambulatory subjects and ease of use, but it is very expensive and somewhat fragile and requires cleaning and sterilization after each use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The solid-state manometry (SSM) is good high frequency response, application in ambulatory subjects and ease of use, but it is very expensive and somewhat fragile and requires cleaning and sterilization after each use. Draganov et al [4] and Florisson et al [3] conducted trials comparing solid-state catheter (SSC) and triple-lumen water-perfusion catheter (WPC) for sphincter of Oddi manometry done at the time of ERCP and for anorectal manometry in pig models, and stated the use of the SSC system carries potential advantages such as the SSC is simpler and easier to set up and use because the equipment has fewer components and is freely mobile and the use of the SSC may decrease the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. However, they performed the tests at the time of ERCP or in animal models, offering little information about the patients’ nasal and pharyngeal sensation during esophageal manometry.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery

Wang

Duan

et al. 2012

BMC Gastroenterol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo compare the characteristics between 22-channel water-perfusion manometry (WPM) and solid-state manometry (SSM) with 36 sensors of the pressure measurements, as well as patients’ discomfort indices in nose and pharynx, the preparation and operation time of the manometry.Methods12 volunteers were included in the study. Each of the volunteers underwent esophageal manometry by both 22-channel water-perfusion catheter (WPC) and solid-state catheter (SSC) with 36 sensors in random order, and separated by 30 min. The subjects gave a VAS score soon after each test. Non-parametric tests were used to analyze the differences and Bland-Altman plots were used to assess the consistency of the two systems.ResultsDuring the wet swallows, there were significant differences between the two systems in three measurements of location of lower esophageal sphincter (LES) upper margin (Z = -2.11, P = 0.035), LES relax ratio (Z = -2.20, P = 0.028) and IRP4s (Z = -2.05, P = 0.041). During the jelly pocket swallows, LES relax ratio measurements of the two systems showed significant differences (Z = -2.805, P = 0.005). Further Bland–Altman plots analysis presented good agreement between the two systems measurements of location of LES upper margin, LES relax ratio and IRP4s. The discomfort indices of subjects’ nasal sensation were higher when inserting the solid-state catheter [5(3.75-5)] than water-perfusion one (2.5(2-4)) (Z = -2.471, P = 0.013), as well as the discomfort indices of pharyngeal sensation (7.5(4.75-9) vs. 4.5(3.75-6.5)), (Z = -2.354, P = 0.019). The preparation time for WPC was 40(39-41) minutes, which was much longer than that for SSC 32.5(31.75-33) minutes, (Z = -3.087, P = 0.002). And the nurses reported it’s much easier to insert WPC (Z = -3.126, P = 0.002).ConclusionsIn conclusion, most pressure measurements were consistent between WPM and SSM. Patients tolerated better with WPC, while for operators, the SSC presented more convenient.

show abstract

A novel model used to compare water–perfused and solid–state anorectal manometry

Abstract: The new model of the anal canal shows promise as a tool for assessing physiological interventions. The solid-state manometer has many advantages over the water-perfused manometer, providing more consistent measurements at clinically relevant pressures.

Cited by 15 publications

References 11 publications

Influence of Gender and Age on Anorectal Function: Normal Values from Anorectal Manometry in a Large Caucasian Population

Influence of Gender and Age on Anorectal Function: Normal Values from Anorectal Manometry in a Large Caucasian Population

A Comparison of Standard Anorectal Manometry and High Resolution Manometry Patterns in Dyssynergic Patients

A comparative study of 22-channel water-perfusion system and solid-state system with 36-sensors in esophageal manometery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About