Mayank Sharma1, Ann C Lowry2, Satish S Rao3, William E Whitehead4, Lawrence A Szarka1, Frank A Hamilton5, Adil E Bharucha1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 2. Colon and Rectal Surgery Associates, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, USA. 4. Center for Functional GI and Motility Disorders, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 5. National Institute of Digestive Diseases, Kidney, and Diabetes, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The equipment and methods for performing anorectal manometry and biofeedback therapy are different and not standardized. Normal values are influenced by age and sex. Our aims were to generate reference values, examine effects of gender and age, and compare anorectal pressures measured with diagnostic and biofeedback catheters and a portable manometry system. METHODS: In this multicenter study, anorectal pressures at rest, during squeeze, and evacuation were measured with diagnostic and biofeedback catheters using Mcompass™ portable device in healthy subjects. Balloon expulsion time and rectal sensation were evaluated. The effects of age and gender were assessed. RESULTS: The final dataset comprised 108 (74 women) of 124 participants with normal rectal balloon expulsion time (less than 60 s). During squeeze, anal resting pressure increased by approximately twofold in women and threefold in men. During evacuation, anal pressure exceeded rectal pressure in 87 participants (diagnostic catheter). The specific rectoanal pressures (e.g., resting pressure) were significantly correlated and not different between diagnostic and biofeedback catheters. With the diagnostic catheter, the anal squeeze pressure and rectal pressure during evacuation were greater in men than women (p ≤ 0.02). Among women, women aged 50 years and older had lower anal resting pressure; rectal pressure and the rectoanal gradient during evacuation were greater in older than younger women (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Anal and rectal pressures measured with diagnostic and biofeedback manometry catheters were correlated and not significantly different. Pressures were influenced by age and sex, providing reference values in men and women.
BACKGROUND: The equipment and methods for performing anorectal manometry and biofeedback therapy are different and not standardized. Normal values are influenced by age and sex. Our aims were to generate reference values, examine effects of gender and age, and compare anorectal pressures measured with diagnostic and biofeedback catheters and a portable manometry system. METHODS: In this multicenter study, anorectal pressures at rest, during squeeze, and evacuation were measured with diagnostic and biofeedback catheters using Mcompass™ portable device in healthy subjects. Balloon expulsion time and rectal sensation were evaluated. The effects of age and gender were assessed. RESULTS: The final dataset comprised 108 (74 women) of 124 participants with normal rectal balloon expulsion time (less than 60 s). During squeeze, anal resting pressure increased by approximately twofold in women and threefold in men. During evacuation, anal pressure exceeded rectal pressure in 87 participants (diagnostic catheter). The specific rectoanal pressures (e.g., resting pressure) were significantly correlated and not different between diagnostic and biofeedback catheters. With the diagnostic catheter, the anal squeeze pressure and rectal pressure during evacuation were greater in men than women (p ≤ 0.02). Among women, women aged 50 years and older had lower anal resting pressure; rectal pressure and the rectoanal gradient during evacuation were greater in older than younger women (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Anal and rectal pressures measured with diagnostic and biofeedback manometry catheters were correlated and not significantly different. Pressures were influenced by age and sex, providing reference values in men and women.
Authors: Jean C Fox; Joel G Fletcher; Alan R Zinsmeister; Barb Seide; Stephen J Riederer; Adil E Bharucha Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: J Eric Jelovsek; Alayne D Markland; William E Whitehead; Matthew D Barber; Diane K Newman; Rebecca G Rogers; Keisha Dyer; Anthony G Visco; Gary Sutkin; Halina M Zyczynski; Benjamin Carper; Susan F Meikle; Vivian W Sung; Marie G Gantz Journal: Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-07-15
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: David O Prichard; Taehee Lee; Gopanandan Parthasarathy; Joel G Fletcher; Alan R Zinsmeister; Adil E Bharucha Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Jessica Noelting; Shiva K Ratuapli; Adil E Bharucha; Doris M Harvey; Karthik Ravi; Alan R Zinsmeister Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 10.864
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: 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: Adil E Bharucha; Guido Basilisco; Allison Malcolm; Tae Hee Lee; Matthew B Hoy; S Mark Scott; Satish S C Rao Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2022-02-27 Impact factor: 3.960
Authors: Adil E Bharucha; Marie G Gantz; Satish S Rao; Ann C Lowry; Heidi Chua; Tennekoon Karunaratne; Jennifer Wu; Frank A Hamilton; William E Whitehead Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 2.261