Premium
High‐resolution anal manometry: Repeatability, validation, and comparison with conventional manometry
Author(s) -
Gosling Jonathan,
Plumb Andrew,
Taylor Stuart A.,
Cohen Richard,
Emmanuel Anton V.
Publication year - 2019
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 - 10.1111/nmo.13591
Subject(s) - repeatability , anorectal manometry , high resolution manometry , intraclass correlation , limits of agreement , biomedical engineering , medicine , reproducibility , nuclear medicine , surgery , chemistry , chromatography , defecation , achalasia , esophagus
Background Accurate measurement of anal sphincter function is potentially of value in defining treatment of common pelvic floor disorders. The aim of this study was to establish repeatability and validate high‐resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) by comparison to conventional manometry (CM). Arising from this work would be definitive normal range data. Methods Eighty healthy volunteers (40 female) underwent a test‐retest repeatability study. A 16‐channel water‐perfused HRAM catheter was compared to an 8‐channel conventional catheter using a station pull‐through technique. Key Results High‐resolution anorectal manometry had similar precision to conventional manometry when measuring resting pressure (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.73 vs 0.68, HRAM vs CM) and squeeze increment (ICC 0.90 vs 0.94, HRAM vs CM). HRAM measured resting pressures 10% lower than CM and squeeze pressure 27% higher than CM. Conclusions and Inferences High‐resolution anorectal manometry is a valid technique with comparable precision to CM. HRAM measurements differ considerably to CM, and a new set of normal values must be used.