BACKGROUND: Measurements of anorectal function using high-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) and rectal barostat technology provide more reliable results than standard ARM with an elastic balloon; however, HR-ARM results have not been compared to ARM and standard barostat protocols are impractical in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to validate HR-ARM against standard ARM and standard barostat against a novel Rapid Barostat Bag (RBB) measurement and elastic balloon measurements of rectal function. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy volunteers (15 female, 11 male, 19-52 years) were studied. Measurements of anal function and simulated defecation were compared for 12-sensor HR-ARM and 6-sensor standard ARM using line plots from the same recording. Rectal capacity, compliance, and sensation (volume threshold) were measured by elastic balloon, standard barostat, and RBB methods using stepwise inflation of a 700-mL polyethylene bag to 40 mmHg distension by electronic barostat and handheld syringe monitored by sphygmo-manometer, respectively. Results are reported as mean ± SD. Bland-Altman plots and correlation coefficients (r) for measurements were calculated. KEY RESULTS: There was excellent agreement between HR- and standard ARM measurements (r > 0.86, <25 mmHg difference) and between standard barostat and RBB measurements of rectal capacity (r = 0.97, <25 mL difference). Correlation coefficients of threshold volumes for initial perception, urgency and discomfort were 0.37, 0.71, and 0.95, respectively. No significant correlation was present with elastic balloon measurements. Time to complete studies was shorter for HR-ARM than standard ARM and for RBB than standard barostat in historical controls. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: HR-ARM with RBB measurements of anorectal function provides quick and reasonably accurate measurements of continence function suitable for use in routine clinical practice (ClinicalTrial.gov NCT01456442).
BACKGROUND: Measurements of anorectal function using high-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) and rectal barostat technology provide more reliable results than standard ARM with an elastic balloon; however, HR-ARM results have not been compared to ARM and standard barostat protocols are impractical in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to validate HR-ARM against standard ARM and standard barostat against a novel Rapid Barostat Bag (RBB) measurement and elastic balloon measurements of rectal function. METHODS: Twenty-six healthy volunteers (15 female, 11 male, 19-52 years) were studied. Measurements of anal function and simulated defecation were compared for 12-sensor HR-ARM and 6-sensor standard ARM using line plots from the same recording. Rectal capacity, compliance, and sensation (volume threshold) were measured by elastic balloon, standard barostat, and RBB methods using stepwise inflation of a 700-mL polyethylene bag to 40 mmHg distension by electronic barostat and handheld syringe monitored by sphygmo-manometer, respectively. Results are reported as mean ± SD. Bland-Altman plots and correlation coefficients (r) for measurements were calculated. KEY RESULTS: There was excellent agreement between HR- and standard ARM measurements (r > 0.86, <25 mmHg difference) and between standard barostat and RBB measurements of rectal capacity (r = 0.97, <25 mL difference). Correlation coefficients of threshold volumes for initial perception, urgency and discomfort were 0.37, 0.71, and 0.95, respectively. No significant correlation was present with elastic balloon measurements. Time to complete studies was shorter for HR-ARM than standard ARM and for RBB than standard barostat in historical controls. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: HR-ARM with RBB measurements of anorectal function provides quick and reasonably accurate measurements of continence function suitable for use in routine clinical practice (ClinicalTrial.gov NCT01456442).
Authors: Nicholas R Oblizajek; Sangeetha Gandhi; Mayank Sharma; Subhankar Chakraborty; Anjani Muthyala; David Prichard; Kelly Feuerhak; Adil E Bharucha Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2019-04-08 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Adil E Bharucha; Charles H Knowles; Isabelle Mack; Allison Malcolm; Nicholas Oblizajek; Satish Rao; S Mark Scott; Andrea Shin; Paul Enck Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 65.038
Authors: Jakob Duelund-Jakobsen; Jonas Worsoe; Lilli Lundby; Peter Christensen; Klaus Krogh Journal: Therap Adv Gastroenterol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.409
Authors: Emma V Carrington; S Mark Scott; Adil Bharucha; François Mion; Jose M Remes-Troche; Allison Malcolm; Henriette Heinrich; Mark Fox; Satish S Rao Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Ugo Grossi; Emma V Carrington; Adil E Bharucha; Emma J Horrocks; S Mark Scott; Charles H Knowles Journal: Gut Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 23.059