E V Carrington1, H Heinrich1,2, C H Knowles1, S S Rao3, M Fox2,4, S M Scott1. 1. National Bowel Research Centre & GI Physiology Unit, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland. 3. Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta University, Augusta, GA, USA. 4. Abdominal Center: Gastroenterology, St. Claraspital, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ano-rectal manometry (ARM) is the most commonly performed investigation for assessment of anorectal dysfunction. Its use is supported by expert consensus documents and international guidelines. Variation in technology, data acquisition, and analysis affect results and clinical interpretation. This study examined variation in ARM between institutions to establish the status of current practice. METHODS: A 50-item web-based questionnaire assessing analysis and interpretation of ARM was distributed by the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group via societies representing practitioners that perform ARM. Study methodology and performance characteristics between institutions were compared. KEY RESULTS: One hundred and seven complete responses were included from 30 countries. Seventy-nine (74%) institutions performed at least two studies per week. Forty-nine centers (47%) applied conventional ARM (≤8 pressure sensors) and 57 (53%) high-resolution ARM (HR-ARM). Specialist centers were most likely to use HR-ARM compared to regional hospitals and office-based practice (63% vs 37%). Most conventional ARM systems used water-perfused technology (34/49); solid-state hardware was more frequently used in centers performing HR-ARM (44/57). All centers evaluated rest and squeeze. There was marked variation in the methods used to report results of maneuvers. No two centers had identical protocols for patient preparation, setup, study, and data interpretation, and no center fully complied with published guidelines. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: There is significant discrepancy in methods for data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of ARM. This is likely to impact clinical interpretation, transfer of data between institutions, and research collaboration. There is a need for expert international co-operation to standardize ARM.
BACKGROUND: Ano-rectal manometry (ARM) is the most commonly performed investigation for assessment of anorectal dysfunction. Its use is supported by expert consensus documents and international guidelines. Variation in technology, data acquisition, and analysis affect results and clinical interpretation. This study examined variation in ARM between institutions to establish the status of current practice. METHODS: A 50-item web-based questionnaire assessing analysis and interpretation of ARM was distributed by the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group via societies representing practitioners that perform ARM. Study methodology and performance characteristics between institutions were compared. KEY RESULTS: One hundred and seven complete responses were included from 30 countries. Seventy-nine (74%) institutions performed at least two studies per week. Forty-nine centers (47%) applied conventional ARM (≤8 pressure sensors) and 57 (53%) high-resolution ARM (HR-ARM). Specialist centers were most likely to use HR-ARM compared to regional hospitals and office-based practice (63% vs 37%). Most conventional ARM systems used water-perfused technology (34/49); solid-state hardware was more frequently used in centers performing HR-ARM (44/57). All centers evaluated rest and squeeze. There was marked variation in the methods used to report results of maneuvers. No two centers had identical protocols for patient preparation, setup, study, and data interpretation, and no center fully complied with published guidelines. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: There is significant discrepancy in methods for data acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of ARM. This is likely to impact clinical interpretation, transfer of data between institutions, and research collaboration. There is a need for expert international co-operation to standardize ARM.
Authors: Eleni Athanasakos; Sally Dalton; Susan McDowell; Tara Shea; Kate Blakeley; David Rawat; Stewart Cleeve Journal: Pediatr Surg Int Date: 2019-12-16 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: P T Heitmann; P Rabbitt; A Schloithe; V Patton; P P Skuza; D A Wattchow; P G Dinning Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2019-07-06 Impact factor: 2.571
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