4.4 Article

Audit of the diagnosis of rectal evacuation disorders in chronic constipation

期刊

NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY AND MOTILITY
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nmo.13510

关键词

constipation; dyssynergia; examination; pelvic floor

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01DK67071, R01-DK115950]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Balloon expulsion test (BET) and high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRM) are used in diagnosis of rectal evacuation disorders (REDs); their performance characteristics are suboptimal. Methods We audited records of 449 consecutive patients with chronic constipation (CC). We documented anal sphincter tone and contraction, puborectalis tenderness, and perineal descent on digital rectal exam (DRE); maximum resting and squeeze pressures, and rectoanal pressure gradient on HRM; weight or time to balloon expulsion; colonic transit, and area of rectal area on radiograph (RASF). We based the diagnosis of RED on >= 2 abnormalities on both DRE and HRM, excluding results of BET, as the performance of BET is being investigated. Results of RED vs non-RED and results obtained using tbBET vs wbBET groups were compared. We used multivariate logistic regressions to identify predictors of RED using different diagnostic modalities. Key Results Among 449 individuals, 276 were included (74 RED and 202 non-RED). Predominant exclusions were for no HRM (n = 79) or use of low resolution anorectal manometry (n = 77). Logistic regression models for abnormal tbBET showed time >60 seconds, RASF and age-predicted RED. For tbBET, the current cutoff of 60 seconds had sensitivity of 39.0% and specificity 93.0% to diagnose RED; on the other hand, applying the cutoff at 22 seconds, the sensitivity was 77.8% and specificity 69.8%. Conclusions & Inferences The clinical diagnosis of RED in patients with CC is achieved with combination of DRE, HRM and an optimized, time-based BET. Prospective studies are necessary to confirm the proposed 22 second cutoff for tbBET.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据