Premium
Anorectal functions in patients with spinal cord injury
Author(s) -
Greving,
Tegenthoff,
Nedjat,
Kim Orth,
Bötel,
Meister,
Micklefield,
May May,
Enck
Publication year - 1998
Publication title -
neurogastroenterology and motility
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.489
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1365-2982
pISSN - 1350-1925
DOI - 10.1046/j.1365-2982.1998.00124.x
Subject(s) - pudendal nerve , medicine , somatosensory evoked potential , anorectal manometry , spinal cord , external anal sphincter , pathological , lesion , anesthesia , evoked potential , sphincter , surgery , defecation , rectum , anal canal , audiology , psychiatry
We wished to establish anorectal functions in patients with spinal cord lesions, related to the level of lesion and its completeness. We also wished to determine the value of neurophysiological tests for completeness of transsections in comparison with manometry and visceral sensory testing. In 32 patients (31.5 ± 14.1 years, 25 males) with spinal trauma, completeness of transsection was assessed clinically. In 16 of these patients (30 ± 15.6 years, nine males), a neurological work‐up included recording of somatosensory evoked potentials (SEP) and motor evoked potentials (MEP) from the pudendal nerve within the first week after trauma. Also, anal sphincter EMG and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency (PNTML) were assessed. All patients also underwent conventional anorectal manometry and visceral sensory testing. Of all 32 patients, 15 were judged as `complete' based on their clinical signs. Of those 16 tested neurologically, seven were labelled `complete' since no MEP or SEP were detectable; one had pudendal SEP and MEP present, while SEP were present but delayed (47.0 ± 8.8 msec) in the remaining patients. In four of these patients, also MEP were recorded (27.9 ± 5.2 msec) and normal. PNTML was present in 12/16 patients independent of the completeness of lesion, and was rated normal in nine and delayed in three patients. EMG was normal in five, and pathological in 11 cases. In 5/15 cases of those judged as `complete' (in 3/7 evaluated neurologically), visceral sensory testing revealed a minimal threshold for rectal perception of distension of 44 mL (range: 10–130), which sometimes was also perceived as urge to defecate. In a further case, manometry showed major voluntary action of the anal sphincter. These patients had lesions at all levels of the spinal column, ranging from cervical (C4,C6,C7) via thoratical (2 × T7,T8,T12) to lumbar segments. Anorectal function testing, and specifically visceral sensory testing may be superior to neurological assessment of `completeness' of spinal cord lesions. It may be that visceral afferent pathways others than spinothalamic tract are involved in rectal perception that are less accessible to conventional neurophysiological diagnostic work‐up.