Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of vector manometry for characterization of functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy

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

Abstract

Aim

The impact of 3-dimensional vector manometry (VM) for characterization of the functional outcome of restorative proctocolectomy (RP) was studied in 61 patients at a median of 86 months after RP for ulcerative colitis.

Methods

A 14-day continence diary was utilized to quantify continence, urgency, and the frequency of defecation. The clinical outcome data were correlated to the physiology parameters of VM and volumetry.

Results

VM parameters at rest correlated with postoperative continence but not substantially with stool frequency and urgency. High radial asymmetry was significantly correlated with the degree of incontinence (r = 0.333, p = 0.013). Resting pressures demonstrated a better correlation with the degree of incontinence when documented for the high-pressure zone (HPZ; portion of the sphincter with at least 50% of the maximum pressure; r = 0.301, p = 0.025) and when performed in the continuous pull-through technique. Stool frequency and urgency were better characterized by volumetry parameters like threshold volumes and pouch compliance. The specificity and sensitivity of the vector volume at rest of the HPZ for the prediction of incontinence was 63.6% and 59.1%, respectively. The corresponding values were 67% and 68%, respectively, for radial asymmetry at rest. Stool frequency and urgency were better characterized by volumetry parameters like threshold volumes and pouch compliance.

Conclusion

A strong anal sphincter at rest and a consistent radial distribution of the sphincter pressure are the most reliable indicators of continence after RP obtained by VM, but their clinical usefulness is limited.

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. Michelassi F, Lee J, Rubin M, Fichera A, Kasza K, Karrison T, Hurst RD (2003) Long-term functional results after ileal pouch anal restorative proctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis: a prospective observational study. Ann Surg 238:433–441 (discussion 442–445)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Delaney CP, Fazio VW, Remzi FH, Hammel J, Church JM, Hull TL, Senagore AJ, Strong SA, Lavery IC (2003) Prospective, age-related analysis of surgical results, functional outcome, and quality of life after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Ann Surg 238:221–228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. McGuire BB, Brannigan AE, O'Connell PR (2007) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 94:812–823

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Hahnloser D, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, Larson DR, Crownhart BS, Dozois RR (2007) Results at up to 20 years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Br J Surg 94:333–340

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. McIntyre PB, Pemberton JH, Wolff BG, Beart RW, Dozois RR (1994) Comparing functional results one year and ten years after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis for chronic ulcerative colitis. Dis Colon Rectum 37:303–307

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bullard KM, Madoff RD, Gemlo BT (2002) Is ileoanal pouch function stable with time? Results of a prospective audit. Dis Colon Rectum 45:299–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lewis WG, Miller AS, Williamson ME, Sagar PM, Holdsworth PJ, Axon AT, Johnston D (1995) The perfect pelvic pouch—what makes the difference? Gut 37:552–556

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Williamson ME, Lewis WG, Miller AS, Sagar PM, Holdsworth PJ, Johnston D (1995) Clinical and physiological evaluation of anorectal eversion during restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 82:1391–1394

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Jorge JM, Habr-Gama A (2000) The value of sphincter asymmetry index in anal incontinence. Int J Colorectal Dis 15:303–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Fynes MM, Behan M, O’Herlihy C, O’Connell PR (2000) Anal vector volume analysis complements endoanal ultrasonographic assessment of postpartum anal sphincter injury. Br J Surg 87:1209–1214

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Damon H, Henry L, Barth X, Mion F (2002) Fecal incontinence in females with a past history of vaginal delivery: significance of anal sphincter defects detected by ultrasound. Dis Colon Rectum 45:1445–1450 (discussion 1450–1451)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Perry RE, Blatchford GJ, Christensen MA, Thorson AG, Attwood SE (1990) Manometric diagnosis of anal sphincter injuries. Am J Surg 159:112–116 (discussion 116–117)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Roberts PL, Coller JA, Schoetz DJ Jr., Veidenheimer MC (1990) Manometric assessment of patients with obstetric injuries and fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 33:16–20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Jorge JM, Wexner SD (1993) Anorectal manometry: techniques and clinical applications. South Med J 86:924–931

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Vaizey CJ, Carapeti E, Cahill JA, Kamm MA (1999) Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 44:77–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hueting WE, Gooszen HG, van Laarhoven CJ (2004) Sexual function and continence after ileo pouch anal anastomosis: a comparison between a meta-analysis and a questionnaire survey. Int J Colorectal Dis 19:215–218

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tomita R, Igarashi S (2007) Assessments of anal canal sensitivity in patients with soiling 5 years or more after colectomy, mucosal proctectomy, and ileal J pouch-anal anastomosis for ulcerative colitis. World J Surg 31:210–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tomita R, Kurosu Y, Munakata K (1996) Electrophysiologic assessments in pudendal and sacral motor nerves after ileal J-pouch-anal anastomosis for patients with ulcerative colitis and adenomatosis coli. Dis Colon Rectum 39:410–415

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. O'Connell PR, Pemberton JH, Brown ML, Kelly KA (1987) Determinants of stool frequency after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Am J Surg 153:157–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Farouk R, Duthie GS, Bartolo DC (1994) Recovery of the internal anal sphincter and continence after restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 81:1065–1068

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hallgren T, Fasth S, Delbro D, Nordgren S, Oresland T, Hulten L (1993) Possible role of the autonomic nervous system in sphincter impairment after restorative proctocolectomy. Br J Surg 80:631–635

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Gosselink MP, West RL, Kuipers EJ, Hansen BE, Schouten WR (2005) Integrity of the anal sphincters after pouch-anal anastomosis: evaluation with three-dimensional endoanal ultrasonography. Dis Colon Rectum 48:1728–1735

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Church JM, Saad R, Schroeder T, Fazio VW, Lavery IC, Oakley JR, Milsom JW, Tuckson W (1993) Predicting the functional result of anastomoses to the anus: the paradox of preoperative anal resting pressure. Dis Colon Rectum 36:895–900

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Becker JM, LaMorte W, St Marie G, Ferzoco S (1997) Extent of smooth muscle resection during mucosectomy and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis affects anorectal physiology and functional outcome. Dis Colon Rectum 40:653–660

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Pescatori M (1992) The results of pouch surgery after ileo-anal anastomosis for inflammatory bowel disease: the manometric assessment of pouch continence and its reservoir function. World J Surg 16:872–879

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Reissman P, Piccirillo M, Ulrich A, Daniel N, Nogueras JJ, Wexner SD (1995) Functional results of the double-stapled ileoanal reservoir. J Am Coll Surg 181:444–450

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Winter DC, Murphy A, Kell MR, Shields CJ, Redmond HP, Kirwan WO (2004) Perioperative topical nitrate and sphincter function in patients undergoing transanal stapled anastomosis: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial. Dis Colon Rectum 47:697–703

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ho YH, Tsang C, Tang CL, Nyam D, Eu KW, Seow-Choen F (2000) Anal sphincter injuries from stapling instruments introduced transanally: randomized, controlled study with endoanal ultrasound and anorectal manometry. Dis Colon Rectum 43:169–173

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Farouk R, Drew PJ, Duthie GS, Lee PW, Monson JR (1996) Disruption of the internal anal sphincter can occur after transanal stapling. Br J Surg 83:1400

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Silvis R, van Eekelen JW, Delemarre JB, Gooszen HG (1995) Endosonography of the anal sphincter after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Relation with anal manometry and fecal continence. Dis Colon Rectum 38:383–388

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Morgado PJ Jr., Wexner SD, James K, Nogueras JJ, Jagelman DG (1994) Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis: is preoperative anal manometry predictive of postoperative functional outcome? Dis Colon Rectum 37:224–228

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kroesen AJ, Runkel N, Buhr HJ (1999) Manometric analysis of anal sphincter damage after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Int J Colorectal Dis 14:114–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Taylor BM, Beart RW Jr., Phillips SF (1984) Longitudinal and radial variations of pressure in the human anal sphincter. Gastroenterology 86:693–697

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Williams N, Barlow J, Hobson A, Scott N, Irving M (1995) Manometric asymmetry in the anal canal in controls and patients with fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 38:1275–1280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Morgado PJ Jr., Wexner SD, Jorge JM (1994) Discrepancies in anal manometric pressure measurement—important or inconsequential? Dis Colon Rectum 37:820–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Scott NA, Pemberton JH, Barkel DC, Wolff BG (1989) Anal and ileal pouch manometric measurements before ileostomy closure are related to functional outcome after ileal pouch-anal anastomosis. Br J Surg 76:613–616

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Coller JA (1987) Clinical application of anorectal manometry. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 16:17–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Clewing MKA, Buhr HJ (1999) Evaluation and validation of anal sphincter function by anal manometry. Langenbecks Arch Chir Suppl 99:397–402

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zbar AP, Kmiot WA, Aslam M, Williams A, Hider A, Audisio RA, Chiappa A, deSouza N (1999) Use of vector volume manometry and endoanal magnetic resonance imaging in the adult female for assessment of anal sphincter dysfunction. Dis Colon Rectum 42:1411–1418

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Yang YK, Wexner SD (1994) Anal pressure vectography is of no apparent benefit for sphincter evaluation. Int J Colorectal Dis 9:92–95

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General Surgery, Leverkusen General Hospital, Am Gesundheitspark 11, 51375, Leverkusen, Germany

    Andreas D. Rink, Irina Radinski & Karl-Heinz Vestweber

  2. Institute of Experimental Medicine, University of Cologne, Robert-Koch-Str. 10, 50931, Cologne, Germany

    Manfred Nagelschmidt

  3. Clinic of General and Abdominal Surgery, Johannes Gutenberg-University, Langenbeckstraße 1, 55131, Mainz, Germany

    Andreas D. Rink

Authors
  1. Andreas D. Rink
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manfred Nagelschmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Irina Radinski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karl-Heinz Vestweber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreas D. Rink.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rink, A.D., Nagelschmidt, M., Radinski, I. et al. Evaluation of vector manometry for characterization of functional outcome after restorative proctocolectomy. Int J Colorectal Dis 23, 807–815 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-008-0473-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-008-0473-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation