Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Einfluss von Alter und Geschlecht auf die dreidimensionale endoanale Sonographie: Entwicklung von Normalwerten

Effects of Age and Gender on Three-Dimensional Endoanal Ultrasonography Measurements: Development of Normal Ranges

  • Standorte
  • Published:
coloproctology Aims and scope

Zusammenfassung

Fragestellung und Hintergrund:

Stuhlinkontinenz ist eine verbreitete und krankhafte Störung, oftmals verbunden mit einer Funktionsstörung des analen Sphinkters. Eine dreidimensionale (3-D) endoanale Hochfrequenzsonographie (EAUS) ermöglicht eine größere räumliche Auflösung und longitudinale Beurteilung des Analkanals als die konventionelle zweidimensionale (2-D) Untersuchung. Notwendig für Vergleichsuntersuchungen sind verlässliche Normalwerte, die Alter und Geschlecht berücksichtigen.

Patienten und Methodik:

Eine Gruppe von 30 gesunden männlichen (n = 12) und weiblichen (n = 18) Freiwilligen (medianes Alter 49 Jahre; 31–63 Jahre) unterzog sich einer 3-D-EAUS mit einem Hochfrequenz-10-MHz-Schallkopf. Ein Datenzylinder wurde rekonstruiert, um eine Messung der Analkanalstrukturen in 2-D auf proximaler, mittlerer und distaler Analkanalhöhe und in 3-D für longitudinale Messungen vorzunehmen.

Ergebnisse:

Die Männer hatten einen signifikant längeren 3-D-externen analen Sphinkter (EAS) und internen analen Sphinkter (IAS) als die Frauen, insbesondere im anterioren Anteil des EAS (Mittel bei Männern 2,5 cm, Mittel bei Frauen 1,6 cm; p < 0,0001). Bei der Analkanallänge oder beim 2-D-Scanning der Dicke des EAS und des IAS gab es keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen den Geschlechtern. Es fanden sich auch keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen Frauen mit und ohne Entbindungen. Das Alter hatte keine signifikante Auswirkung auf die 3-D-Längenmessungen, die 2-D-EAUS-Messungen der Dicke von IAS und EAS nahmen jedoch mit dem Alter signifikant zu (Analkanalmitte; p = 0,004). Auf den Grundlagen dieser Daten wurden Normalwerte generiert.

Schlussfolgerung:

Die Sphinktermessungen mittels 3-D-Rekonstruktion unterscheiden sich je nach Alter und Geschlecht. Für einen künftigen Datenvergleich in verschiedenen Erkrankungsstadien wurden Normalwerte errechnet, die diese Unterschiede mit einbeziehen.

Abstract

Purpose:

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.

Conclusion:

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. Norton C, Thomas L, Hill J, Guideline Development Group. Management of faecal incontinence in adults: summary of NICE guidance. BMJ 2007;334:1370–1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Baeten C, Bartolo DC, Lehur PA, et al. Consensus conference on faecal incontinence. Tech Coloproctol 2007;11:225–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Johansen JF, Lafferty J. Epidemiology of fecal incontinence: the silent affliction. Am J Gastroenterol 1996;91:33–6.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Nelson RL. Epidemiology of fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 2004;126:Suppl 1:s3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rao SSC. Pathophysiology of adult fecal incontinence. Gastroenterology 2004;126:Suppl 1:s14–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deen KI, Kumar D, Williams JG, et al. The prevalence of anal sphincter defects in fecal incontinence: a prospective study. Gut 1993;34:685–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Sultan AH, Nicholls RJ, Kamm MA, et al. Anal endosonography and correlation with in vitro and in vivo anatomy. Br J Surg 1993;80:508–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sultan AH, Kamm MA, Talbot IC, et al. Anal endosonography for identifying external sphincter defects confirmed histologically. Br J Surg 1994;81:463–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sheilds LE, Lowery C, Deforge C, et al. Technology and early clinical experience with real time 3D ultrasound. Electromedica 1998;66:84–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gold DM, Bartram CI, Halligan S, et al. Three-dimensional endoanal sonography in assessing anal canal injury. Br J Surg 1999;86:365–70.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rao SSC, Aspirov F, Diament N, et al. Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2002;14:553–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bartram CI, Frudinger A. Handbook of anal sonography. Petersfield: Wrightson Biomedical, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Frudinger A, Halligan S, Bartram CI, et al. Female anal sphincter: age related differences in asymptomatic volunteers with high frequency endoanal ultrasound. Radiology 2002;224:417–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Starck M, Bohe M, Fortling B, et al. Endosonography of the anal sphincter in women of different ages and parity. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2005;25:169–76.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hussain SM, Stoker J, Schouten WR et al (1996) Fistula in ano: endoanal sonography versus endoanal MR imaging in classification. Radiology 1996;200:475–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Regadas FS, Murad-Regadas SM, Lima DM, et al. Anal canal anatomy showed by three-dimensional anorectal ultrasonography. Surg Endosc 2007;21:2207–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Williams AB, Bartram CI, Modhwadia D, et al. Endocoil magnetic resonance imaging quantification of external anal sphincter atrophy. Br J Surg 2001;88:853–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Williams AB, Bartram CI, Halligan S, et al. Anal sphincter damage after vaginal delivery using three-dimensional endosonography. Obstet Gynecol 2002;97:770–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Williams AB, Bartram CI, Halligan S, et al. Endosonographic anatomy of the normal anal canal compared with endocoil magnetic resonance imaging. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:176–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. West RL, Dwarkasing S, Felt-Bersma RJ, et al. Hydrogen peroxide-enhanced three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating perianal fistulas: agreement and patient preference. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004;16:1319–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. West RL, Felt-Bersma RJ, Hansen BE, et al. 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 2005;48:540–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Christensen AF, Nyhuus B, Nielsen MB, et al. Three-dimensional anal endosonography may improve diagnostic confidence of detecting damage to the anal sphincter complex. Br J Radiol 2005;78:308–11.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Cazemier M, Terra MP, Stoker J, et al. Atrophy and defects detection of the external anal sphincter: comparison between three-dimensional anal endosonography and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49:20–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Chan CL, Lunniss PJ, Wang D, et al. Rectal sensorimotor dysfunction in patients with urge fecal incontinence: evidence from prolonged manometric studies. Gut 2005;54:1263–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Gregory WT, Boyles SH, Simmons K, et al. External sphincter volume measurements using 3-dimensional endoanal ultrasound. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:1243–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Gerdes B, Kohler HH, Zielke A, et al. The anatomical basis of anal endosonography. A study in postmortem specimens. Surg Endosc 1997;11:986–90.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Williams AB, Cheetham MJ, Bartram CI. 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 2000;87:1674–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Bollard RC, Gardiner A, Lindow S, et al. Normal female anal sphincter: difficulties in interpretation explained. Dis Colon Rectum 2002;45:171–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P. J. Lunniss.

Additional information

Übersetzter Nachdruck aus Tech Coloproctocol 2008;12:323–9; DOI 10.1007/s10151-008-0443-5

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knowles, A., Knowles, C., Scott, S. et al. Einfluss von Alter und Geschlecht auf die dreidimensionale endoanale Sonographie: Entwicklung von Normalwerten. Coloproctol 31, 161–168 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00053-009-0017-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00053-009-0017-7

Schlüsselwörter:

Key Words:

Navigation