Top

International Urogynecology Journal

Published in:

01-06-2012 | Original Article

Predicting anal sphincter defects: the value of clinical examination and manometry

Authors: Anne-Marie Roos, Zeelha Abdool, Ranee Thakar, Abdul H. Sultan

Published in: International Urogynecology Journal | Issue 6/2012

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

The aims of this study were, firstly, to determine the diagnostic accuracy of an anal incontinence score, clinical examination and anal manometry in identifying anal sphincter defects and, secondly, to establish manometric cut-off values associated with sphincter defects.

Methods

One hundred fifty-nine women were evaluated by clinical examination, anal manometry and endoanal ultrasound (EAU). Accuracy measures were calculated, using EAU as the gold standard.

Results

Perineal body length (p = 0.84) and pelvic floor muscle strength (p = 0.10) were not associated with anal sphincter defects. Anal inspection was associated with anal sphincter defects (p < 0.001), although its sensitivity was low at 26%. The sensitivity of digital rectal examination was 67% and the specificity 55%. Cut-off values of manometric findings were set to maximise sensitivity at 30 mm anal length, 54 mm Hg maximum resting pressure, 95 mm Hg maximum squeeze pressure and 53 mm Hg squeeze increment.

Conclusions

Clinical assessment has a poor sensitivity for detecting anal sphincter defects. The proposed manometric cut-off values can be used to either reassure or identify women who may need further assessment by EAU.

Sultan AH, Thakar R (2007) Third and fourth degree tears. In: Sultan AH, Thakar R, Fenner DE (eds) Perineal and anal sphincter trauma. Springer, London, pp 33–51CrossRef

Roos AM, Sultan AH, Thakar R (2010) Outcome of primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS)—does the grade of tear matter? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 36:368–374PubMedCrossRef

Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Bartram CI (1994) Third degree obstetric anal sphincter tears: risk factors and outcome of primary repair. Br Med J 308:887–891CrossRef

Mahony R, Behan M, Daly L, Kirwan C, O’Herlihy C, O’Connell PR (2007) Internal anal sphincter defect influences continence outcome following obstetric anal sphincter injury. Am J Obstet Gynecol 196:217.e1–217.e5CrossRef

Nichols CM, Lamb EH, Ramakrishnan V (2005) Differences in outcomes after third- versus fourth-degree perineal laceration repair: a prospective study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 193:530–536PubMedCrossRef

Norderval S, Öian P, Revhaug A, Vonen B (2005) Anal incontinence after obstetric sphincter tears: outcome of anatomic primary repairs. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1055–1061PubMedCrossRef

Thakar R, Sultan AH (2004) Anal endosonography and its role in assessing the incontinent patient. Best Pract Res Obstet Gynaecol 18:157–173CrossRef

Scheer I, Thakar R, Sultan AH (2009) Mode of delivery after previous obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS)—a reappraisal? Int Urogynecol J 20:1095–1101CrossRef

Fynes M, Donnelly V, Behan M, O’Connell PR, O’Herlihy C (1999) The effect of second vaginal delivery on anal sphincter function and faecal incontinence: a prospective study. Lancet 354:983–986PubMedCrossRef

10.

Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Talbot IC, Nicholls RJ, Bartram CI (1994) Anal endosonography for identifying external sphincter defects confirmed histologically. Br J Surg 81:463–465PubMedCrossRef

11.

Frudinger A, Halligan S, Bartram CI, Spencer J, Kamm MA, Winter R (2003) Assessment of the predictive value of a bowel symptom questionnaire in identifying perianal and anal sphincter trauma after vaginal delivery. Dis Colon Rectum 46:742–747PubMedCrossRef

12.

Dobben AC, Terra MP, Deutekom M 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 22:783–790PubMedCrossRef

13.

Groenendijk AG, Birnie E, Boeckxstaens, Roovers JPW, Bonsel GJ (2009) Anorectal function testing and anal endosonography in the diagnostic work-up of patients with primary pelvic organ prolapse. Gynecol Obstet Investig 67:187–194CrossRef

14.

Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Hudson CN, Thomas JM, Bartram CI (1993) Anal sphincter disruption during vaginal delivery. N Engl J Med 329:1905–1911PubMedCrossRef

15.

de Leeuw JW, Vierhout ME, Struijk PC, Auwerda HJ, Bac DJ, Wallenburg HCS (2002) Anal sphincter damage after vaginal delivery: relationship of anal endosonography and manometry to anorectal complaints. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1004–1010PubMedCrossRef

16.

Nazir M, Carlsen E, Jacobsen AF, Nesheim B-I (2002) Is there any correlation between objective anal testing, rupture grade, and bowel symptoms after primary repair of obstetric anal sphincter rupture? An observational cohort study. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1325–1331PubMedCrossRef

17.

Roos AM, Abdool Z, Sultan AH, Thakar R (2011) The diagnostic accuracy of endovaginal and transperineal ultrasound for detecting anal sphincter defects: the PREDICT-study. Clin Radiol 66:597–604PubMedCrossRef

18.

Thakar R, Sultan AH (2007) Postpartum problems and the role of a perineal clinic. In: Sultan AH, Thakar R, Fenner DE (eds) Perineal and anal sphincter trauma. Springer, London, pp 65–79CrossRef

19.

Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80PubMedCrossRef

20.

Laycock J (1994) Clinical evaluation of the pelvic floor. In: Schuessler B, Laycock J, Norton P, Stanton S (eds) Pelvic floor re-education: principles and practice. Springer, London, pp 42–48

21.

Norderval S, Markskog A, Røssaak K, Vonen B (2008) Correlation between anal sphincter defects and anal incontinence following obstetric sphincter tears: assessment using scoring systems for sonographic classification of defects. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 31:78–84PubMedCrossRef

22.

Newcombe RG (1998) Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med 17:857–872PubMedCrossRef

23.

Bordeianou L, Lee KY, Rockwood T et al (2008) Anal resting pressures at manometry correlate with fecal incontinence severity index and with the presence of sphincter defects on ultrasound. Dis Colon Rectum 51:1010–1014PubMedCrossRef

24.

Felt-Bersma RJF, Cuesta MA, Koorevaar M et al (1992) Anal endosonography: relationship with anal manometry and neurophysiologic tests. Dis Colon Rectum 35:944–949PubMedCrossRef

25.

Buch E, Alós R, Solana A, Roig JV, Fernández C, Diaz F (1998) Can digital examination substitute anorectal manometry for the evaluation of anal canal pressures? Rev Esp Enferm Dig 90:90–93

26.

Kaushal JN, Goldner F (1991) Validation of the digital rectal examination as an estimate of anal sphincter squeeze pressure. Am J Gastroenterol 86:886–887PubMed

27.

Hallan RI, Marzouk DEMM, Waldron DJ, Womack NR, Williams NS (1989) Comparison of digital and manometric assessment of anal sphincter function. Br J Surg 76:973–975PubMedCrossRef

28.

Eckhardt VF, Kanzler G (1993) How reliable is digital examination for the evaluation of anal sphincter tone? Int J Color Dis 8:95–97CrossRef

29.

Herbst F, Teleky B (1994) Alteration of maximum anal resting pressure by digital rectal examination prior to manometry: analysis of agreement between repeat measurements. Int J Color Dis 9:207–210CrossRef

Title: Predicting anal sphincter defects: the value of clinical examination and manometry
Authors: Anne-Marie Roos
Zeelha Abdool
Ranee Thakar
Abdul H. Sultan
Publication date: 01-06-2012
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: International Urogynecology Journal / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0937-3462
Electronic ISSN: 1433-3023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00192-011-1609-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Predicting anal sphincter defects: the value of clinical examination and manometry

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Introduction and hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

Anorectal symptoms before and after laparoscopic sacrocolpoperineopexy for pelvic organ prolapse

My mentors in urogynecology

Mobility of the perineal body and anorectal junction before and after childbirth

Anterior colporrhaphy does not induce bladder outlet obstruction

Cystocele repair by vaginal route: comparison of three different surgical techniques of mesh placement

Surgery for cystocele III: do all cystoceles involve apical descent?