INTRODUCTION: Rectal perception testing is a recommended component of anorectal physiology testing. Although recent consensus (London) guidelines suggested criteria for categorizing hyporectal and hyper-rectal sensitivity, these were based on scant evidence. Moreover, data regarding diagnostic capabilities and clinical utility of rectal perception testing are lacking. The aims of this study were to determine the association between rectal perception testing and both clinical and physiological variables to enhance the analysis and interpretation of real-life test results. METHODS: Prospectively documented data from 1,618 (92% female) patients referred for anorectal physiology testing were analyzed for 3 rectal perception thresholds (first, urge, and maximal tolerated). Normal values derived from healthy female subjects were used to categorize each threshold into hyposensitive and hypersensitive to examine the clinical relevance of this categorization. RESULTS: There was poor to moderate agreement between the 3 thresholds. Older age, male sex, and constipation were associated with higher perception thresholds, whereas irritable bowel syndrome, fecal incontinence, connective tissue disease, and pelvic radiation were associated with lower perception thresholds to some, but not all, thresholds (P < 0.01 on multivariate analysis for all). The clinical utility and limitations of categorizing thresholds into “hypersensitivity” and “hyposensitivity” were determined. DISCUSSION: Commonly practiced rectal perception testing is correlated with several disease states and thus has clinical relevance. However, most disease states were correlated with 2 or even only 1 abnormal threshold, and agreement between thresholds was limited. This may suggest each threshold measures different pathophysiological pathways. We suggest all 3 thresholds be measured and reported separately in routine clinical testing.
28 December 2022 in Neurogastroenterology & Motility
Background: Recent community‐based studies have demonstrated that experiencing multiple concurrent functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) is associated with increased somatization, worse quality of life (QoL), and greater health care utilization. However, the presence of multiple overlapping FGIDs is unstudied specifically in chronic constipation and functional defecation disorders (FDD). We investigated the prevalence and impact of additional nonconstipation FGIDs on constipation severity, anorectal physiology, anxiety and depression, and QoL, in patients with chronic constipation and FDD.Methods: One‐hundred and forty‐six consecutive patients with functional constipation or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS‐C/IBS‐M) presenting to a tertiary referral Neurogastroenterology Clinic were studied. In addition, 90/146 (62%) qualified for FDD due to abnormal defecatory physiology. Patients underwent comprehensive baseline assessment comprising anorectal physiology, Bristol Stool Chart, Rome questionnaire, Knowles‐Eccersley‐Scott‐Symptom (KESS) constipation score, Hospital Anxiety, and Depression Scale, and modified 36‐Item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36) for QoL. Additional FGIDs were diagnosed using Rome III criteria.Key Results: Additional nonconstipation FGIDs occurred in 85% of patients, with a mean of 2.1 (SD 1.6) additional FGIDs. Patients with four or more additional FGIDs experienced greater constipation severity compared to those with no additional FGIDs (p = 0.004). Comorbid FGIDs were associated with worse SF‐36 scores for physical functioning (p < 0.001), role‐physical (p = 0.005), bodily pain (p < 0.001), vitality (p = 0.008), social functioning (p = 0.004), and mental health index (p = 0.031).Conclusions and Inferences: Functional gastrointestinal disorders comorbidity is highly prevalent in chronic constipation and defecatory disorders, and this is associated with greater symptom severity and worse QoL. Multimodal treatments targeting comorbid FGIDs may lead to superior outcomes.
1 January 2017 in American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology
Fecal incontinence (FI) in men is common, yet data on sex differences in clinical features, physiology, and treatment are scarce. Our aim was to provide insights into FI in males compared with females. Prospectively collected data from 73 men and 596 women with FI in a tertiary referral center were analyzed. Anorectal physiology, clinical characteristics, and outcome of instrumented biofeedback (BF) were recorded. Thirty-one men with FI proceeded to BF and were matched with 62 age-matched women with FI who underwent BF. Men with FI had higher resting, squeeze, and cough anal sphincter pressures ( P < 0.001) and were more able to hold a sustained squeeze compared with women ( P = 0.04). Men with FI had higher rectal pressure and less inadequate rectal pressure on strain and higher sensory thresholds ( P < 0.05). Men, but not women, with isolated soiling had higher anal resting and squeeze pressures compared with those with overt FI ( P < 0.05). Men were less likely to undergo BF when offered compared with women. Baseline symptom severity did not differ between the groups. In men, the absence of an organic cause for the FI and the presence of overt FI, but not isolated soiling, were correlated with improvement in patient satisfaction following BF. The outcomes of 50% reduction in FI episodes, physician assessment, symptoms, and quality of life scores after BF all significantly improved in men similarly to women. We conclude that men, compared with women, with FI have unique clinical features and physiology and are less likely to have investigations and treatment despite successful outcome with BF. Future studies to customize treatment in males and determine barriers to therapy are warranted. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Fecal incontinence in men is common, yet data on sex differences in clinical features, physiology, and treatment are scarce. We provide evidence that men, compared with women, with fecal incontinence have unique clinical features and physiology and are less likely to have investigations and treatment despite successful outcome with anorectal biofeedback therapy.