Clinical history, questionnaire data and response to antisecretory therapy are insufficient to make a conclusive diagnosis of GERD in isolation, but are of value in determining need for further investigation. Conclusive evidence for reflux on oesophageal testing include advanced grade erosive oesophagitis (LA grades C and D), long-segment Barrett’s mucosa or peptic strictures on endoscopy or distal oesophageal acid exposure time (AET) >6% on ambulatory pH or pH-impedance monitoring. A normal endoscopy does not exclude GERD, but provides supportive evidence refuting GERD in conjunction with distal AET <4% and <40 reflux episodes on pH-impedance monitoring off proton pump inhibitors. Reflux-symptom association on ambulatory reflux monitoring provides supportive evidence for reflux triggered symptoms, and may predict a better treatment outcome when present. When endoscopy and pH or pH-impedance monitoring are inconclusive, adjunctive evidence from biopsy findings (histopathology scores, dilated intercellular spaces), motor evaluation (hypotensive lower oesophageal sphincter, hiatus hernia and oesophageal body hypomotility on high-resolution manometry) and novel impedance metrics (baseline impedance, postreflux swallow-induced peristaltic wave index) can add confidence for a GERD diagnosis; however, diagnosis cannot be based on these findings alone. An assessment of anatomy, motor function, reflux burden and symptomatic phenotype will therefore help direct management. Future GERD management strategies should focus on defining individual patient phenotypes based on the level of refluxate exposure, mechanism of reflux, efficacy of clearance, underlying anatomy of the oesophagogastric junction and psychometrics defining symptomatic presentations.

Background: This manuscript summarizes consensus reached by the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) for the performance, terminology used, and interpretation of anorectal function testing including anorectal manometry (focused on high‐resolution manometry), the rectal sensory test, and the balloon expulsion test. Based on these measurements, a classification system for disorders of anorectal function is proposed.Methods: Twenty‐nine working group members (clinicians/academics in the field of gastroenterology, coloproctology, and gastrointestinal physiology) were invited to six face‐to‐face and three remote meetings to derive consensus between 2014 and 2018.Key recommendations: The IAPWG protocol for the performance of anorectal function testing recommends a standardized sequence of maneuvers to test rectoanal reflexes, anal tone and contractility, rectoanal coordination, and rectal sensation. Major findings not seen in healthy controls defined by the classification are as follows: rectoanal areflexia, anal hypotension and hypocontractility, rectal hyposensitivity, and hypersensitivity. Minor and inconclusive findings that can be present in health and require additional information prior to diagnosis include anal hypertension and dyssynergia.Conclusions and Inferences: This framework introduces the IAPWG protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function based on objective physiological measurement. The use of a common language to describe results of diagnostic tests, standard operating procedures, and a consensus classification system is designed to bring much‐needed standardization to these techniques.

This is the first double-blind multicenter study examining the effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation in a significant number of fecally incontinent patients. A total of 34 consecutive patients (31 women), median age 57 years (range, 33–73 years), underwent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. After implantation, 27 of 34 patients were randomized in a double-blind crossover design to stimulation ON or OFF for 1-month periods. While still blinded, the patients chose the period of stimulation (ON or OFF) that they had preferred. The mode of stimulation corresponding to the selected period was continued for 3 months (final period). Outcome measures were frequency of fecal incontinence and urgency episodes, delay in postponing defecation, score severity, feeling of improvement, preference for ON or OFF, quality of life, and manometric measurements. In the crossover portion of the study, the self-reported frequency of fecal incontinence episodes was significantly reduced during the ON versus the OFF period (P = 0.03), and this symptomatic improvement was consistent: 1) with the patients feeling of greater improvement during the ON versus OFF period (P = 0.02); 2) with the significant preference of patients (P = 0.02) for the ON versus OFF period. In the final period of the study, the frequency of fecal incontinence episodes decreased significantly (P = 0.005) in patients with the stimulator ON. The ability to postpone defecation (P = 0.01), the score for symptom severity (P = 0.0004), and the quality of life (P < 0.05) as well as anal sphincter function significantly improved. The significant improvement in FI during the ON versus OFF period indicated that the clinical benefit of sacral nerve stimulation was not due to placebo.

Faecal incontinence and evacuation disorders are common, impair quality of life and incur substantial economic costs worldwide. As symptoms alone are poor predictors of underlying pathophysiology and aetiology, diagnostic tests of anorectal function could facilitate patient management in those cases that are refractory to conservative therapies. In the past decade, several major technological advances have improved our understanding of anorectal structure, coordination and sensorimotor function. This Consensus Statement provides the reader with an appraisal of the current indications, study performance characteristics, clinical utility, strengths and limitations of the most widely available tests of anorectal structure (ultrasonography and MRI) and function (anorectal manometry, neurophysiological investigations, rectal distension techniques and tests of evacuation, including defecography). Additionally, this article provides our consensus on the clinical relevance of these tests.