Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Discrepancies in anal manometric pressure measurement—Important or inconsequential?

  • Original Contributions
  • Published:
Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract

PURPOSE: Maximum resting and squeeze pressures have been the most widely employed parameters for manometric assessment of the anal sphincters. However, a single maximum value may not always be the best assessment. METHODS: The aim of this study was to compare mean and maximum resting and mean and maximum squeeze pressures in a large sample population. All manometric pressure profiles were reviewed by a single individual blinded to the patient's age and diagnosis. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-six patients with a measurable high-pressure zone were included in this study. The study population was comprised of 279 females and 186 males. A significant difference was found between mean (56.26 mmHg) and maximum (79.2 mmHg) resting pressures (P<0.01) and also between mean (81.25 mmHg) and maximum (119.50 mmHg) squeeze pressures (P<0.01). A significant difference (P<0.01) was also observed when compared by length of the high-pressure zone. CONCLUSION: The measurement, documentation, and reporting of mean resting and mean squeeze pressures provide a better perspective of anal manometric results, since the two sets of values are significantly different (P<0.01), regardless of the anal canal length. Therefore, these data support the standardized evaluation of both mean and maximum pressures in individual patients and in published series.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Loening-Baucke V, Anuras S. Anorectal maometry in healthy elderly subjects. Am J Gastroenterol 1985;80:50–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Taylor BM, Beart RW Jr, Phillips SF. Longitudinal and radial variations in the human anal sphincter. Gastroenterology 1984;86:693–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McHugh SM, Diamant NE. Effect of age, gender, and parity on anal canal pressures. Contribution of impaired anal sphincter function to fecal incontinence. Dig Dis Sci 1987;37:726–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gibbons CP, Bannister JJ, Trowbridge EA, Read NW. An analysis of anal sphincter pressure and anal compliance in normal subjects. Int J Colorectal Dis 1986;1:231–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Felt-Bersma RJ, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SG. Anorectal function investigations in incontinent and continent patients. Differences and discriminatory value. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:479–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Batignani G, Monaci I, Ficari F, Tonelli F. What affects continence after anterior resection of the rectum? Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:329–35.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sainio AP, Voutilainen PE, Husa AI. Recovery of anal sphincter function following transabdominal repair of rectal prolapse: cause of improved continence? Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:816–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fleshman JW, Dreznik Z, Fry RD, Kodner IJ. Anal sphincter repair for obstetric injury: manometric evaluation of functional results. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:1061–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Enck P, Kuhlbush R, Lubke H, Frieling T, Erckenbrecht JF. Age and sex and anorectal manometry in incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:1026–30.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Orrom WJ, Bartolo DC, Miller R, Mortensen NJ, Roe AM. Rectopexy is an ineffective treatment for obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:41–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sorensen M, Lorentzen M, Petersen J, Christiansen J. Anorectal dysfunction in patients with urologic disturbance due to multiple sclerosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:136–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Williams JG, Wong WD, Jensen L, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM. Incontinence and rectal prolapse: a prospective manometric study. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:209–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lin J-K. Anal manometric studies in hemorrhoids and anal fissures. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:839–42.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson GP, Pemberton JH, Ness J, Samson NM, Zinsmeister AR. Transducer manometry and the ef fect of body position on anal canal pressures. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:469–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wexner SD, Marchetti F, Jagelman DG. The role of sphincteroplasty for incontinence re-evaluated: a prospective physiologic and functional review. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:22–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Coller JA. Computerized anal sphincter manometry performance and analysis. In: Smith LE, ed. Practical guide to anorectal testing. New York: Igaku-Shoin, 1990:65–11.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jorge JM, Wexner SD. A practical guide to anal manometry. South Med J 1993;86:924–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Farouk R, Duthie GS, Bartolo DC. Functional anorectal disorders and physiologic evaluation. In: Beck DE, Wexner SD, eds. Fundamentals of anorectal surgery. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992:68–88.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Roberts PL. Principles of manometry. Semin Colon Rectal Surg 1992;3:64–7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Pemberton JH. Anatomy and physiology of the anus and rectum. In: Beck DE, Wexner SD, eds. Fundamentals of anorectal surgery. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992:1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Cali RL, Blatchford GJ, Perry RE, Pitsch RM, Thorson AG, Christensen MA. Normal variation in anorectal manometry. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:1161–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Perry RE, Blatchford GJ, Christensen MA, Thorson AG, Atwood SE. Manometric diagnosis of anal sphincter injuries. Am J Surg 1990;159:112–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bannister JJ, Abouzekry L, Read NW. Effect of aging on anorectal function. Gut 1987;28:353–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Loening-Baucke V, Anuras S. Effects of age and sex on anorectal manometry. Am J Gastroenterol 1985;80:50–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pedersen IK, Christiansen J. A study of the physiological variation in anal manometry. Br J Surg 1989;76:69–71.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Miller R, Lewis GT, Bartolo DC, Cervero F, Mortensen NJ. Sensory discrimination and dynamic activity in the anorectum: evidence using a new ambulatory technique. Br J Surg 1988;75:1003–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Fort Lauderdale, Florida

    Pedro J. Morgado Jr. M.D., Steven D. Wexner M.D. & J. Marcio N. Jorge M.D.

Authors
  1. Pedro J. Morgado Jr. M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven D. Wexner M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. Marcio N. Jorge M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Orlando, Florida, May 8 to 13, 1994.

Dr. Morgado was a visiting surgeon from the Centro Medico, Caracas, Venezuela. He was funded, in part, by a grant from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Research Foundation.

About this article

Cite this article

Morgado, P.J., Wexner, S.D. & Jorge, J.M.N. Discrepancies in anal manometric pressure measurement—Important or inconsequential?. Dis Colon Rectum 37, 820–823 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050148

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050148

Key words

Search

Navigation