Techniques in Coloproctology

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 323–329

Effects of age and gender on three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography measurements: development of normal ranges

  • A. M. Knowles
  • C. H. Knowles
  • S. M. Scott
  • P. J. Lunniss
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Faecal incontinence is a common and morbid disorder that is often related to anal sphincter dysfunction. High-frequency, three-dimensional (3-D) endoanal ultrasonography (EAUS) allows greater spatial resolution and longitudinal appreciation of the anal canal than conventional 2-D assessment. A robust normal range of values allowing for age and sex is required for subsequent disease comparison.

Methods

A group of 30 healthy male (n=12) and female (n=18) volunteers (median age, 49 years; range, 31–63 years) underwent 3-D EAUS using a high-frequency 10-MHz transducer. A reconstructed data cube was interrogated to measure anal canal structures in 2-D at high, middle and low levels, and in 3-D for longitudinal measurements.

Results

Men had a significantly longer 3-D external anal sphincter (EAS) and internal anal sphincter (IAS) than women, especially the anterior EAS (mean in men 2.5 cm, mean in women 1.6 cm, p<0.0001). There were no significant differences between the sexes for anal canal length or by 2-D scanning for the thickness of the EAS and IAS. No significant differences were observed between parous and nulliparous women. Age had no significant effect on 3-D length measurements, but 2-D EAUS measurements of the thickness of both the IAS and EAS increased with age significantly (mid canal, p=0.004). On these bases, normal ranges were generated.

Conclusions

Sphincter measurements, enabled by 3-D reconstruction, vary with age and sex. A normal range incorporating these variations has been produced for future data comparison in disease states.

Key words

Anal canal Aging Anal sphincter 3-D endoanal ultrasonography Faecal incontinence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Norton C, Thomas L, Hill J, Guideline Development Group (2007) Management of faecal incontinence in adults: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 334:1370–1371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeten C, Bartolo DC, Lehur PA et al (2007) Consensus conference on faecal incontinence. Tech Coloproctol 11:225–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johansen JF, Lafferty J (1996) Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol 91:33–36Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nelson RL (2004) Epidemiology of fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126[Suppl 1]:s3–s7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rao SSC (2004) Pathophysiology of adult fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 126[Suppl 1]:s14–s22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Deen KI, Kumar D, Williams JG et al (1993) The prevalence of anal sphincter defects in fecal incontinence: a prospective study. Gut 34:685–688PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sultan AH, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA et al (1993) Anal endosonography and correlation with in vitro and in vivo anatomy. Br J Surg 80:508–511PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Talbot IC et al (1994) Anal endosonography for identifying external sphincter defects confirmed histologically. Br J Surg 81:463–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sheilds LE, Lowery C, Deforge C, Gustafson D (1998) Technology and early clinical experience with real time 3D ultrasound. Electromedica 66:84–88Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gold DM, Bartram CI, Halligan S et al (1999) Three-dimensional endoanal sonography in assessing anal canal injury. Br J Surg 86:365–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rao SSC, Aspirov F, Diament N et al (2002) Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 14:553–559PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bartram CI, Frudinger A (1997) Handbook of anal sonography, 1st edn. Wrightson Biomedical, PetersfieldGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Frudinger A, Halligan S, Bartram CI et al (2002) Female anal sphincter: age related differences in asymptomatic volunteers with high frequency endoanal ultrasound. Radiology 224:417–423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Starck M, Bohe M, Fortling B, Valentin L (2005) Endosonography of the anal sphincter in women of different ages and parity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynaecol 25:169–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hussain SM, Stoker J, Schouten WR et al (1996) Fistula in ano: endoanal sonography versus endoanal MR imaging in classification. Radiology 200:475–481PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Regadas FS, Murad-Regadas SM, Lima DM et al (2007) Anal canal anatomy showed by three-dimensional anorectal ultrasonography. Surg Endosc 21:2207–2211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Williams AB, Bartram CI, Modhwadia D et al (2001) Endocoil magnetic resonance imaging quantification of external anal sphincter atrophy. Br J Surg 88:853–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Williams AB, Bartram CI, Halligan S et al (2002) Anal sphincter damage after vaginal delivery using three-dimensional endosonography. Obstet Gynecol 97:770–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Williams AB, Bartram CI, Halligan S et al (2002) Endosonographic anatomy of the normal anal canal compared with endocoil magnetic resonance imaging. Dis Colon Rectum 45:176–183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    West RL, Dwarkasing S, Felt-Bersma RJ et al (2004) Hydrogen peroxide-enhanced three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating perianal fistulas: agreement and patient preference. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 16:1319–1324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    West RL, Felt-Bersma RJ, Hansen BE et al (2005) Volume measurements of the anal sphincter complex in healthy controls and fecal-incontinent patients with a three dimensional reconstruction of endoanal ultrasonography images. Dis Colon Rectum 48:540–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Christensen AF, Nyhuus B, Nielsen MB, Christensen H (2005) Three-dimensional anal endosonography may improve diagnostic confidence of detecting damage to the anal sphincter complex. Br J Radiol 78:308–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cazemier M, Terra MP, Stoker J et al (2006) Atrophy and defects detection of the external anal sphincter: comparison between three-dimensional anal endosonography and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging. Dis Colon Rectum 49:20–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chan CL, Lunniss PJ, Wang D et al (2005) Rectal sensorimotor dysfunction in patients with urge fecal incontinence: evidence from prolonged manometric studies. Gut 54:1263–1272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Simmons K et al (2006) External sphincter volume measurements using 3-dimensional endoanal ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 194:1243–1248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gerdes B, Kohler HH, Zielke A et al (1997) The anatomical basis of anal endosonography. A study in postmortem specimens. Surg Endosc 11:986–990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams AB, Cheetham MJ, Bartram CI (2000) Gender differences in the longitudinal pressure profile of the anal canal related to anatomical structure as demonstrated on three-dimensional anal endosonography. Br J Surg 87:1674–1679PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bollard RC, Gardiner A, Lindow S et al (2002) Normal female anal sphincter: difficulties in interpretation explained. Dis Colon Rectum 45:171–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Knowles
    • 1
  • C. H. Knowles
    • 1
  • S. M. Scott
    • 1
  • P. J. Lunniss
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Academic Surgery Institute of Cellular and Molecular Science Barts and the LondonQueen Mary’s School of Medicine and Dentistry WhitechapelLondonUK
  2. 2.Centre for Academic Surgery 3rd Floor Alexandra WingRoyal London HospitalWhitechapel, LondonUK

Personalised recommendations