UNLABELLED: Anal endosonography is an imaging technique for the anal sphincter system and offers analysis of its muscular integrity. It is generally assumed that measurement of the thickness of muscle layers is provided by sonography; however, reproducibility of such measurements have not yet been investigated. METHODS: Study 1: In 10 healthy volunteers, endoanal ultrasound was performed independently by two experienced investigators with two different ultrasound machines, and thickness of the muscle layers of the internal and external anal sphincter was assessed in the position of the intermediate dorsal anal canal in a randomized cross-over fashion. Study 2: In a study of similar design, sonography was performed in nine healthy volunteers by two investigators independently using a single ultrasound machine in three standardized positions (proximal/intermediate/distal anal canal) and the sphincter layers assessed in the left, right, and dorsal segment. RESULTS: Study 1: Both the same investigator with different ultrasound scanners and different investigators with the same machine failed to obtain reproducible results with respect to internal and external anal sphincter muscle layer diameter (four bivariate correlations, all with p > 0.05). Study 2: Standardization of the probe position did not improve the agreement (2 x 9 bivariate correlations, all but two p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: At present, therefore, endoanal ultrasound does not provide reliable morphometric data on anal sphincter muscle diameter. This could explain previously conflicting observations of associations between anal sphincter morphometry and function.
RCT Entities:
UNLABELLED: Anal endosonography is an imaging technique for the anal sphincter system and offers analysis of its muscular integrity. It is generally assumed that measurement of the thickness of muscle layers is provided by sonography; however, reproducibility of such measurements have not yet been investigated. METHODS: Study 1: In 10 healthy volunteers, endoanal ultrasound was performed independently by two experienced investigators with two different ultrasound machines, and thickness of the muscle layers of the internal and external anal sphincter was assessed in the position of the intermediate dorsal anal canal in a randomized cross-over fashion. Study 2: In a study of similar design, sonography was performed in nine healthy volunteers by two investigators independently using a single ultrasound machine in three standardized positions (proximal/intermediate/distal anal canal) and the sphincter layers assessed in the left, right, and dorsal segment. RESULTS: Study 1: Both the same investigator with different ultrasound scanners and different investigators with the same machine failed to obtain reproducible results with respect to internal and external anal sphincter muscle layer diameter (four bivariate correlations, all with p > 0.05). Study 2: Standardization of the probe position did not improve the agreement (2 x 9 bivariate correlations, all but two p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: At present, therefore, endoanal ultrasound does not provide reliable morphometric data on anal sphincter muscle diameter. This could explain previously conflicting observations of associations between anal sphincter morphometry and function.
Authors: Emmanuel I Eguare; Paul Neary; James Crosbie; Sean M Johnston; Peter Beddy; Bernadette McGovern; William C Torreggiani; Kevin C Conlon; Frank B V Keane Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 3.452