Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Normative values in anorectal manometry using microtip technology: A cohort study in 172 subjects

  • Original Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Colorectal Disease Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aims of this study were to obtain normative values in resting/squeeze pressure and surface electromyography (s-EMG) in anorectal manometry using microtip technology and to determine the relationship between objective measurable values, gender and age in a cohort with no anorectal disorders.

Methods

One hundred seventy-two white central European subjects (106 males/66 females) were recruited prior to left colonic or upper rectal surgery and studied by anorectal rapid pull-through manometry with a microtip transducer system and endoanal s-EMG using a bipolar plug electrode. s-EMG patterns were determined as plateau, peak and decrease by a blinded co-investigator. Objective measurable sphincter pressures and s-EMG values were correlated with gender, age and s-EMG patterns.

Results

Squeeze pressure, voluntary pressure as well as s-EMG amplitude and its area under the curve were significantly lower in women compared to men (p < 0.001 each), whereas resting pressure showed no gender differences. s-EMG patterns were strongly influenced by gender. Male patients showed significantly more plateau pattern whereas peak pattern was significantly more often in women. In both genders, the peak pattern was associated with significant higher squeeze pressures. In all measurements, we found considerable inter-individual variations being higher in elder patients. There was no manometric parameter correlating with age.

Conclusions

Gender is the strongest factor influencing objective measurable manometric data for healthy men and women. There are significant gender differences concerning squeeze patterns. All manometric values should be interpreted in the context of gender and of methodology used. Large prospective cohort studies matched for gender are necessary to clarify the effect of ageing on anal sphincter strength.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Whitehead WE, Wald A, Diamant NE, Enck P, Pemberton JH, Rao SS (1999) Functional disorders of the anus and rectum. Gut 45(2):55–59

    Google Scholar 

  2. Madoff RD, Williams JG, Caushaj PF (1992) Fecal incontinence. N Engl J Med 326(15):1002–1007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Nelson RL (2004) Epidemiology of fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126(1 Suppl 1):S3–S7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bordeianou L, Rockwood T, Baxter N, Lowry A, Mellgren A, Parker S (2008) Does incontinence severity correlate with quality of life? Prospective analysis of 502 consecutive patients. Colorectal Dis 10(3):273–279

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bannister JJ, Abouzekry L, Read NW (1987) Effect of aging on anorectal function. Gut 28(3):353–357

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Felt-Bersma RJ, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SG (1988) Investigation of anorectal function. Br J Surg 75(1):53–55

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hallan RI, Marzouk DE, Waldron DJ, Womack NR, Williams NS (1989) Comparison of digital and manometric assessment of anal sphincter function. Br J Surg 76(9):973–975

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Diamant NE, Kamm MA, Wald A, Whitehead WE (1999) AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology 116(3):735–760

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rao SS (2004) Diagnosis and management of fecal incontinence. American College of Gastroenterology Practice Parameters Committee. Am J Gastroenterol 99(8):1585–1604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rao SS, Azpiroz F, Diamant N, Enck P, Tougas G, Wald A (2002) Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 14(5):553–559

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Dobben AC, Terra MP, Deutekom M, Gerhards MF, Bijnen AB, Felt-Bersma RJ, Janssen LW, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J (2007) Anal inspection and digital rectal examination compared to anorectal physiology tests and endoanal ultrasonography in evaluating fecal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis 22(7):783–790

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Parks TG (1992) The usefulness of tests in anorectal disease. World J Surg 16(5):804–810

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Pinho M, Hosie K, Bielecki K, Keighley MR (1991) Assessment of noninvasive intra-anal electromyography to evaluate sphincter function. Dis Colon Rectum 34(1):69–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Gee AS, Jones RS, Durdey P (2000) On-line quantitative analysis of surface electromyography of the pelvic floor in patients with faecal incontinence. Br J Surg 87(6):814–818

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sorensen M, Tetzschner T, Rasmussen OO, Christiansen J (1991) Relation between electromyography and anal manometry of the external anal sphincter. Gut 32(9):1031–1034

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Pehl C, Enck P, Franke A, Frieling T, Heitland W, Herold A, Hinninghofen H, Karaus M, Keller J, Krammer HJ, Kreis M, Kuhlbusch-Zicklam R, Monnikes H, Munnich U, Schiedeck T, Schmidtmann M (2007) Anorectal manometry. Z Gastroenterol 45(5):397–417

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Drossman DA, Dumitrascu DL (2006) Rome III: New standard for functional gastrointestinal disorders. Journal of Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases 15(3):237

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen J (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd edn. Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  19. Corsetti M (2010) Anorectal manometry with water-perfused catheter in healthy adults with no functional bowel disorders. Colorectal Dis 12(3):220–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Gundling F, Seidl H, Scalercio N, Schmidt T, Schepp W, Pehl C (2010) Influence of gender and age on anorectal function: normal values from anorectal manometry in a large Caucasian population. Digestion 81(4):207–213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Florisson JM, Coolen JC, Bissett IP, Plank LD, Parry BR, Menzi E, Merrie AE (2006) A novel model used to compare water-perfused and solid-state anorectal manometry. Tech Coloproctol 10(1):17–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sun WM, Read NW (1989) Anorectal function in normal human subjects: effect of gender. Int J Colorectal Dis 4(3):188–196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kritasampan P, Lohsiriwat S, Leelakusolvong S (2004) Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy adult Thai subjects. J Med Assoc Thai 87(5):536–542

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Simpson RR, Kennedy ML, Nguyen MH, Dinning PG, Lubowski DZ (2006) Anal manometry: a comparison of techniques. Dis Colon Rectum 49(7):1033–1038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rasmussen OO, Sorensen M, Tetzschner T, Christiansen J (1992) Dynamic anal manometry: physiological variations and pathophysiological findings in fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 103(1):103–113

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Loening-Baucke V, Anuras S (1985) Effects of age and sex on anorectal manometry. Am J Gastroenterol 80(1):50–53

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ciriza-de-Los-Rios C, Ruiz-de-Leon-San-Juan A, Diaz-Rubio Garcia M, Tomas-Moros E, Garcia-Duran F, Munoz-Yague T, Canga-Rodriguez-Valcarcel F, Gomez-de-la-Camara A, Castellano-Tortajada G (2010) Differences in the pressures of canal anal and rectal sensitivity in patients with fecal incontinence, chronic constipation and healthy subjects. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 102(12):683–690

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cali RL, Blatchford GJ, Perry RE, Pitsch RM, Thorson AG, Christensen MA (1992) Normal variation in anorectal manometry. Dis Colon Rectum 35(12):1161–1164

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Felt-Bersma RJ, Gort G, Meuwissen SG (1991) Normal values in anal manometry and rectal sensation: a problem of range. Hepatogastroenterology 38(5):444–449

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rao SS, Hatfield R, Soffer E, Rao S, Beaty J, Conklin JL (1999) Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy adults. Am J Gastroenterol 94(3):773–783

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. McHugh SM, Diamant NE (1987) Anal canal pressure profile: a reappraisal as determined by rapid pullthrough technique. Gut 28(10):1234–1241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Jameson JS, Chia YW, Kamm MA, Speakman CT, Chye YH, Henry MM (1994) Effect of age, sex and parity on anorectal function. Br J Surg 81(11):1689–1692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Fox JC, Fletcher JG, Zinsmeister AR, Seide B, Riederer SJ, Bharucha AE (2006) Effect of aging on anorectal and pelvic floor functions in females. Dis Colon Rectum 49(11):1726–1735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pedersen IK, Christiansen J (1989) A study of the physiological variation in anal manometry. Br J Surg 76(1):69–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ryhammer AM, Laurberg S, Hermann AP (1997) Test–retest repeatability of anorectal physiology tests in healthy volunteers. Dis Colon Rectum 40(3):287–292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Freys SM, Fuchs KH, Fein M, Heimbucher J, Sailer M, Thiede A (1998) Inter- and intraindividual reproducibility of anorectal manometry. Langenbecks Arch Surg 383(5):325–329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Rogers J, Laurberg S, Misiewicz JJ, Henry MM, Swash M (1989) Anorectal physiology validated: a repeatability study of the motor and sensory tests of anorectal function. Br J Surg 76(6):607–609

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Orkin BA, Sinykin SB, Lloyd PC (2010) The digital rectal examination scoring system (DRESS). Dis Colon Rectum 53(12):1656–1660

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General, Visceral, Vascular and Paediatric Surgery, University of Saarland, 66421, Homburg/Saar, Germany

    Jochen Schuld, Otto Kollmar, Christian Schlüter, Martin K. Schilling & Sven Richter

Authors
  1. Jochen Schuld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Otto Kollmar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christian Schlüter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin K. Schilling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sven Richter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jochen Schuld.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schuld, J., Kollmar, O., Schlüter, C. et al. Normative values in anorectal manometry using microtip technology: A cohort study in 172 subjects. Int J Colorectal Dis 27, 1199–1205 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-012-1499-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-012-1499-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation