Skip to main content
Top
Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Ultrasound | RESEARCH

To what extent are anorectal function tests comparable? A study comparing digital rectal examination, anal electromyography, 3-dimensional high-resolution anal manometry, and transperineal ultrasound

Authors: L. Dekker, D. A. van Reijn-Baggen, I. J. M. Han-Geurts, R. J. F. Felt-Bersma

Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Anorectal function tests are helpful for objective investigation of anorectal (dys)function. A variety of tests are available, but there is no recommendation when to perform which test. Furthermore, which test is the most accurate is controversial and the correlation between these tests is not very clear. The aim of our study was to examine the correlation of anal pressures and the possibility to diagnose pelvic floor dyssynergia between digital rectal examination (DRE) and several anorectal function tests.

Methods

Between January 2020 and April 2022, all men and women aged 18 to 80 years, treated at the Proctos Clinic, who were referred for pelvic floor physical therapy (PFPT) by the surgeon and underwent anorectal function tests, were included. DRE was performed to establish the anal pressure at rest and during squeeze and straining. Anorectal function tests included 3D high-resolution anal manometry (3D-HRAM), balloon expulsion test (BET), transperineal ultrasound (TPUS), and surface electromyography (s-EMG).

Results

A total of 50 patients, 37 (74%) females, were included. Median age was 51 years. Twenty-three (62%) females had a history of two or more vaginal deliveries. The most frequent reason for referral for PFPT was fecal incontinence in 27 (54%) patients. The assessed pressures and pelvic floor function measured with DRE by the surgeon and the pelvic floor physical therapist during rest, squeeze, and straining correlated in 78%, 78%, and 84%, respectively. Correlation between DRE and 3D-HRAM or s-EMG was better for squeeze pressures than resting pressures. The correlation between s-EMG and 3D-HRAM was better during squeeze than at rest with an agreement of 59% and 37%, respectively.

Conclusion

DRE by an experienced investigator is of sufficient value for daily clinical practice to detect dyssynergia and to measure sphincter tone. Commonly performed anorectal function tests correlate poorly with DRE and with other anorectal function tests. When conservative treatment fails, further investigation is warranted; however, these results should be interpreted with caution.

What does this paper add to the literature?

Anorectal function tests such as the 3D high-resolution anorectal manometry, balloon expulsion test, surface electromyography, and transperineal ultrasound are all frequently performed in the diagnostic workup in patients with defecation disorders. No previous study has compared these tests regarding their outcomes, nor has the interrater agreement been measured regarding the digital rectal examination by two experienced observers. Furthermore, transperineal ultrasound is in all probability not frequently used and therefore underexposed in the diagnostic workup of patients with dyssynergic defecation.

Literature
  1. Carrington EV et al (2020) The international anorectal physiology working group (IAPWG) recommendations: standardized testing protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function. Neurogastroenterol Motil. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nmo.​13679
  2. Lam TJ, Felt-Bersma RJF (2013) Clinical examination remains more important than anorectal function tests to identify treatable conditions in women with constipation. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00192-012-1796-x
  3. Tantiphlachiva K, Rao P, Attaluri A, Rao SSC (2010) Digital rectal examination is a useful tool for identifying patients with dyssynergia. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 8(11):955–960. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​cgh.​2010.​06.​031View ArticlePubMed
  4. Vaizey CJ, Kamm MA (2000) Prospective assessment of the clinical value of anorectal investigations. Digestion 61(3):207–214. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1159/​000007759View ArticlePubMed
  5. Bharucha AE, Lacy BE (2020) Mechanisms, evaluation, and management of chronic constipation. Gastroenterology 158(5):1232–1249. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1053/​j.​gastro.​2019.​12.​034View ArticlePubMed
  6. Koppen IJN et al (2016) Surgical decision-making in the management of children with intractable functional constipation: what are we doing and are we doing it right? J Pediatr Surg. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​jpedsurg.​2016.​05.​023
  7. Rao SSC et al (2016) Anorectal disorders. Gastroenterology. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1053/​j.​gastro.​2016.​02.​009
  8. Carrington EV et al (2018) Expert consensus document: advances in the evaluation of anorectal function. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 15(5):309–323. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nrgastro.​2018.​27View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  9. Beatrice DO, Gaetano DV, Dario C, Girolamo G (2021) Reliability of digital rectal examination as compared to anal manometry in chronic anal fissure. Asian J Surg 44(7):1015–1016. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​asjsur.​2021.​04.​044View Article
  10. Voorham-Van Der Zalm PJ et al (2013) Reliability and differentiation of pelvic floor muscle electromyography measurements in healthy volunteers using a new device: The Multiple Array Probe Leiden (MAPLe). Neurourol Urodyn 32(4):341–348. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​nau.​22311View ArticlePubMed
  11. Ouchi M et al (2020) Reliability of manometry for assessing pelvic floor muscle function in healthy men. Neurourol Urodyn. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​nau.​24374
  12. Gosling J, Plumb A, Taylor SA, Cohen R, Emmanuel AV (2019) High-resolution anal manometry: repeatability, validation, and comparison with conventional manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nmo.​13591
  13. Chakraborty S, Feuerhak KJ, Zinsmeister AR, Bharucha AE (2017) Reproducibility of high-definition (3D) manometry and its agreement with high-resolution (2D) manometry in women with fecal incontinence. Neurogastroenterol Motil. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nmo.​12950
  14. Coss-Adame E, Rao SSC, Valestin J, Ali-Azamar A, Remes-Troche JM (2015) Accuracy and reproducibility of high-definition anorectal manometry and pressure topography analyses in healthy subjects. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13(6):1143-1150.e1. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​cgh.​2014.​12.​034View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  15. Dobben AC et al (2007) Anal inspection and digital rectal examination compared to anorectal physiology tests and endoanal ultrasonography in evaluating fecal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis 22(7):783–790. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00384-006-0217-3View ArticlePubMed
  16. Prichard DO, Fetzer JR (2022) Retrospective evaluation of operator bias in the performance of high-resolution anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil e14341. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nmo.​14341
  17. Felt-Bersma RJF, Strijers RLM, Janssen JJWM, Visser SL, Meuwissen SGM (1989) The external anal sphincter - relationship between anal manometry and anal electromyography and its clinical relevance. Dis Colon Rectum 32(2):112–116. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF02553822View ArticlePubMed
  18. Mills PM, Hosker GL, Kiff ES, Smith ARB (2002) Strength-duration testing of the external anal sphincter in females with anorectal dysfunction. Dis Colon Rectum 45(1):83–90. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10350-004-6118-zView ArticlePubMed
  19. Thomas C, Lefaucheur JP, Galula G, De Parades V, Bourguignon J, Atienza P (2002) Respective value of pudendal nerve terminal motor latency and anal sphincter electromyography in neurogenic fecal incontinence. Neurophysiol Clin 32(1):85–90. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0987-7053(01)00287-8View ArticlePubMed
  20. Liu J et al (2021) Digital rectal examination is a valuable bedside tool for detecting dyssynergic defecation: a diagnostic study and a meta-analysis. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021:5685610. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2021/​5685610View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  21. van Reijn-Baggen DA, Elzevier HW, Putter H, Pelger RCM, Han-Geurts IJM (2022) Pelvic floor physical therapy in patients with chronic anal fissure: a randomized controlled trial. Tech Coloproctol 26(7):571–582. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10151-022-02618-9View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  22. Felt-Bersma RJF, Vlietstra MS, Vollebregt PF, Han-Geurts IJM, Rempe-Sorm V, vander Mijnsbrugge GJH et al (2018) 3D high-resolution anorectal manometry in patients with perianal fistulas: comparison with 3D-anal ultrasound. BMC Gastroenterology 18(1):44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12876-018-0770-6
  23. Xu C et al (2014) Three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry in the diagnosis of paradoxical puborectalis syndrome compared with healthy adults: a retrospective study in 79 cases. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 26(6):621–629. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​MEG.​0000000000000059​View ArticlePubMed
  24. Li Y, Yang X, Xu C, Zhang Y, Zhang X (2013) Normal values and pressure morphology for three-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry of asymptomatic adults: a study in 110 subjects. Int J Colorectal Dis 28(8):1161–1168. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00384-013-1706-9View ArticlePubMed
  25. Mion F et al (2017) 3D high-definition anorectal manometry: values obtained in asymptomatic volunteers, fecal incontinence and chronic constipation. Results of a prospective multicenter study (NOMAD). Neurogastroenterol Motil 29(8). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nmo.​13049
  26. Carrington EV et al (2014) Traditional measures of normal anal sphincter function using high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) in 115 healthy volunteers. Neurogastroenterol Motil 26(5). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nmo.​12307
  27. Cuong LM et al (2021) Normal values for high-resolution anorectal manometry in healthy young adults: evidence from Vietnam. BMC Gastroenterology 21(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12876-021-01865-8
  28. Noelting J, Ratuapli SK, Bharucha AE, Harvey DM, Ravi K, Zinsmeister AR (2021) Normal values for high-resolution anorectal manometry in healthy women: effects of age and significance of rectoanal gradient. Am J Gastroenterol 107(10):1530–6. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​ajg.​2012.​221View Article
  29. Lee BE, Kim GH (2014) How to perform and interpret balloon expulsion test. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 20(3):407–409. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5056/​jnm14068View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  30. Chiarioni G, Kim SM, Vantini I, Whitehead WE (2014) Validation of the balloon evacuation test: reproducibility and agreement with findings from anorectal manometry and electromyography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 12(12):2049–2054. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​cgh.​2014.​03.​013View ArticlePubMed
  31. Gosselaar C, Kranse R, Roobol MJ, Roemeling S, Schröder FH (2008) The interobserver variability of digital rectal examination in a large randomized trial for the screening of prostate cancer. Prostate 68(9):985–993. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​pros.​20759View ArticlePubMed
  32. Pereira-Azevedo N et al (2017) Prospective evaluation on the effect of interobserver variability of digital rectal examination on the performance of the Rotterdam Prostate Cancer Risk Calculator. Int J Urol 24(12):826–832. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​iju.​13442View ArticlePubMed
  33. Slieker-ten Hove MCP, Pool-Goudzwaard AL, Eijkemans MJC, Steegers-Theunissen RPM, Burger CW, Vierhout ME (2009) Face validity and reliability of the first digital assessment scheme of pelvic floor muscle function conform the new standardized terminology of the international continence society. Neurourol Urodyn 28(4):295–300. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​nau.​20659View ArticlePubMed
  34. Orkin BA, Sinykin SB, Lloyd PC (2010) The digital rectal examination scoring system (DRESS). Dis Colon Rectum 53(12):1656–1660. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​DCR.​0b013e3181f23c85​View ArticlePubMed
  35. Soh JS et al (2015) The diagnostic value of a digital rectal examination compared with high-resolution anorectal manometry in patients with chronic constipation and fecal incontinence. Am J Gastroenterol 110(8):1197–1204. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​ajg.​2015.​153View ArticlePubMed
  36. Felt-Bersma RJF, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SGM (1990) Anorectal function investigations in incontinent and continent patients - differences and discriminatory value. Dis Colon Rectum 33(6):479–485. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​BF02052142. (485-6)View ArticlePubMed
  37. Pinto RA, Corrêa Neto IJF, Nahas SC, Froehner Junior I, Soares DFM, Cecconello I (2019) Is the physician expertise in digital rectal examination of value in detecting anal tone in comparison to anorectal manometry? Arquivos de gastroenterologia 56(1):79–83. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1590/​S0004-2803.​201900000-04View ArticlePubMed
  38. Buch E, Alós R, Solana A, Roig JV, Fernández C, Díaz F (1998) Can digital examination substitute anorectal manometry for the evaluation of anal canal pressures? Rev Esp Enferm Dig 90(2):85–93PubMed
  39. Hallan RI, Marzouk DEMM, Waldron DJ, Womack NR, Williams NS (1989) Comparison of digital and manometric assessment of anal sphincter function. Br J Surg 76(9):973–975. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​bjs.​1800760934View ArticlePubMed
  40. Otto SD, Clewing JM, Gröne J, Buhr HJ, Kroesen AJ (2013) Repeatability of anorectal manometry in healthy volunteers and patients. J Surg Res 185(2):85–92. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​j.​jss.​2013.​06.​008View Article
  41. Freys SM, Fuchs KH, Fein M, Heimbucher J, Sailer M, Thiede A (1998) Inter- and intraindividual reproducibility of anorectal manometry. Langenbecks Arch Surg 383(5):325–329. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s004230050141View ArticlePubMed
  42. Grossi U, Carrington EV, Bharucha AE, Horrocks EJ, Scott SM, Knowles CH (2016) Diagnostic accuracy study of anorectal manometry for diagnosis of dyssynergic defecation. Gut 65(3):447–455. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1136/​gutjnl-2014-308835View ArticlePubMed
  43. Van Gruting IMA et al (2017) Accuracy of four imaging techniques for diagnosis of posterior pelvic floor disorders. Obstet Gynecol 130(5):1017–1024. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​AOG.​0000000000002245​View ArticlePubMed
  44. Dedeli O, Turan I, Oztürk R, Bor S (2007) Normative values of the balloon expulsion test in healthy adults. Turk J Gastroenterol 18(3):177–181PubMed
  45. Chiarioni G, Salandini L, Whitehead WE (2005) Biofeedback benefits only patients with outlet dysfunction, not patients with isolated slow transit constipation, (in eng). Gastroenterology 129(1):86–97. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1053/​j.​gastro.​2005.​05.​015View ArticlePubMed
  46. Caetano AC, Santa-Cruz A, Rolanda C (2016) Digital rectal examination and balloon expulsion test in the study of defecatory disorders: are they suitable as screening or excluding tests? Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016:8654314. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2016/​8654314View ArticlePubMedPubMed Central
  47. Woo M et al (2022) “Manometric parameters, when measured with the 3-dimensional high-definition anorectal manometry probe, poorly predict prolonged balloon expulsion time,” (in eng). Neurogastroenterol Motil 34(1):e14180. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​nmo.​14180View ArticlePubMed
  48. Bordeianou L, Savitt L, Dursun A (2011) Measurements of pelvic floor dyssynergia: which test result matters? Dis Colon Rectum 54(1):60–65. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​DCR.​0b013e3181fd2373​View ArticlePubMed
Metadata
Title
To what extent are anorectal function tests comparable? A study comparing digital rectal examination, anal electromyography, 3-dimensional high-resolution anal manometry, and transperineal ultrasound
Authors
L. Dekker
D. A. van Reijn-Baggen
I. J. M. Han-Geurts
R. J. F. Felt-Bersma
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Issue 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-022-04304-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

International Journal of Colorectal Disease 1/2023 Go to the issue