Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anismus: Fact or fiction?

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

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although anismus has been considered to be the principal cause of anorectal outlet obstruction, it is doubtful whether contraction of the puborectalis muscle during straining is paradoxical. The present study was conducted to answer this question. METHODS: During the first part of the study, we retrospectively reviewed 121 patients with constipation and/or obstructed defecation (male:female, 10/111; median age, 51 years). All of these patients underwent electromyography (EMG) of the pelvic floor and the balloon expulsion test (BET) in the left lateral position. Evacuation proctography was performed in all of these patients in the sitting position. Both the posterior anorectal angle and the central anorectal angle were measured. EMG and BET were also performed in ten controls (male:female, 4/6; median age, 47). In 147 patients with fecal incontinence (male:female, 24/123; median age, 58) only EMG activity was recorded. Criteria for anismus during straining were increase or insufficient (<20 percent) decrease of EMG activity, failure to expel an air-filled balloon on BET, and decrease or insufficient (<5 percent) increase of anorectal angle on evacuation proctography. Between June 1994 and March 1995, we conducted a second prospective study in a consecutive series of 49 patients with constipation and/or obstructed defecation and 28 patients with fecal incontinence. Both groups were compared with 19 control subjects. In this study, all three tests were performed. EMG and BET were performed both in the left lateral position and in the sitting position. RESULTS: The retrospective study was undertaken by comparing the constipated patients with the incontinent patients and the controls, and the anismus detected by EMG was found in, respectively, 60, 46, and 60 percent. Failure to expel the air-filled balloon was observed in 80 constipated patients (66 percent) and in 9 control subjects (90 percent). Based on posterior anorectal angle and central anorectal angle measurements, anismus was diagnosed in, respectively, 21 and 35 percent of constipated patients. In the prospective study, none of the tests showed significant differences regarding the prevalence of anismus between the two subgroups of patients and the control subjects. The prevalence of anismus only differed between constipated and incontinent patients when the diagnosis was based on BET in the sitting position (67 vs.32 percent;P <0.005). Our study shows that contraction of the puborectalis muscle during straining is not exclusively found in patients with constipation and/or obstructed defecation. The three tests most commonly used for the diagnosis of anismus showed an extremely poor agreement. CONCLUSION: Based on these findings, we doubt the clinical significance of anismus.

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. Duthie GS, Bartolo DC. Anismus: the cause of constipation? Results of investigation and treatment. World J Surg 1992;16:831–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Barnes PR, Lennard-Jones JE. Function of the striated anal sphincter during straining in control subjects and constipated patients with a radiologically normal rectum or idiopathic megacolon. Int J Colorectal Dis 1988;3:207–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones PN, Lubowski DZ, Swash M, Henry MM. Is paradoxical contraction of the puborectalis muscle of functional importance? Dis Colon Rectum 1987;30:667–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wexner SD, Marchetti F, Salanga VD, Corredor C, Jagelman DG. Neurophysiologic assessment of the anal sphincters. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:606–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Miller R, Duthie GS, Bartolo DC, Roe AM, Locke-Edmunds J, McC Mortensen NJ. Anismus in patients with normal and slow transit constipation. Br J Surg 1991;78:690–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dahl J, Lindquist BL, Tysk C, Leissner P, Philipson L, Järnerot G. Behavioral medicine treatment in chronic constipation with paradoxical anal sphincter contraction. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:769–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ginai AZ. Technical report: evacuation proctography (defecography) a new seat and method of examination. Clin Radiol 1990;42:214–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wasserman IF. Puborectalis syndrome (rectal stenosis due to anorectal spasm). Dis Colon Rectum 1964;7:87–98.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Preston DM, Lennard-Jones JE. Anismus in chronic constipation. Dig Dis Sci 1985;30:413–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kuijpers HC, Bleijenberg G. The spastic pelvic floor syndrome: a cause of constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1985;28:669–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fleshman JW, Dreznik Z, Cohen E, Fry RD, Kodner IJ. Balloon expulsion test facilitates diagnosis of pelvic floor outlet obstruction due to nonrelaxing puborectalis muscle. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:1019–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Johansson C, Nilsson BY, Holmstrom B, Dolk A. Is paradoxical sphincter reaction provoked by needle electrode electromyography? Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:1109–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rutter KR. Electromyographic changes in certain pelvic floor abnormalities. J R Soc Med 1974;67:53–6.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Keighley MR, Shouler P. Outlet syndrome: is there a surgical option? J R Soc Med 1984;77:559–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Miller R, Duthie GS, Bartolo DC, Roe AM, Locke-Edmunds J, Mortensen NJ. Anismus in patients with normal and slow transit constipation. Br J Surg 1991;78:690–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Pezim ME, Pemberton JH, Levin KE, Litchy WJ, Phillips SF. Parameters of anorectal and colonic motility in health and in severe constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:484–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Womack NR, Williams NS, Holmfield JH, Morrison JF, Simpkins KC. New method for the dynamic assessment of anorectal function in constipation. Br J Surg 1985;72:994–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shouler P, Keighley MR. Changes in colorectal function in severe idiopathic chronic constipation. Gastroenterology 1986;90:414–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Read NW, Timms JM, Barfield LJ, Donnelly TC, Bannister JJ. Impairment of defecation in young women with severe constipation. Gastroenterology 1986;90:53–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roe AM, Bartolo DC, Mortensen NJ. Slow transit constipation: comparison between patients with or without previous hysterectomy. Dig Dis Sci 1988;33:1159–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kerrigan DD, Lucas MG, Sun WM, Donnelly TC, Read NW. Idiopathic constipation associated with impaired urethrovesical and sacral reflex function. Br J Surg 1989;76:748–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Johansson C, Ihre T, Holmström B, Nordstrom E, Dolk A, Broden G. A combined electromyographic and cineradiologic investigation in patients with defecation disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:1009–13.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Roberts JP, Womack NR, Hallan RI, Thorpe AC, Williams NS. Evidence from dynamic integrated proctography to redefine anismus. Br J Surg 1992;79:1213–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lubowski DZ, King DW, Finlay IG. Electromyography of the pubococcygeus muscles in patients with obstructed defecation. Int J Colorectal Dis 1992;7:184–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Barnes PR, Lennard-Jones JE. Balloon expulsion from the rectum in constipation of different types. Gut 1985;26:1049–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Turnbull GK, Lennard-Jones JE, Bartram CI. Failure of rectal expulsion as a cause of constipation: why fibre and laxatives sometimes fail. Lancet 1986;1:767–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lestar B, Penninckx FM, Kerremans RP. Defecometry: a new method for determining the parameters of rectal evacuation. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:197–201.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferrante SL, Perry RE, Schreiman JS, Cheng SC, Frick MP. The reproducibility of measuring the anorectal angle in defecography. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:51–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Penninckx F, Debruyne C, Lestar B, Kerremans R. Observer variation in the radiological measurement of the anorectal angle. Int J Colorectal Dis 1990;55:94–7.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Penninckx F, Debruyne C, Lestar B, Kerremans R. Intraobserver variation in the radiological measurement of the anorectal angle. Gastrointest Radiol 1991;16:73–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Yoshioka K, Pinho M, Ortiz J, Oya M, Hyland G, Keighley MR. How reliable is measurement of the anorectal angle by videoproctography? Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:1010–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Shorvon PJ, McHugh S, Diamant NE, Somers S, Stevenson GW. Defecography in normal volunteers: results and implications. Gut 1989;30:1737–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Bartram CI, Turnbull GK, Lennard-Jones JE. Evacuation proctography: an investigation of rectal expulsion in 20 subjects without defecatory disturbance. Gastrointest Radiol 1988;13:72–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Turnbull GK, Bartram CI, Lennard-Jones JE. Radiologic studies of rectal evacuation in adults with idiopathic constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1988;31:190–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bartolo DC, Roe AM, Virjee J, McMortensen NJ, Locke-Edmunds JC. An analysis of rectal morphology in obstructed defecation. Int J Colorectal Dis 1988;3:17–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Goei R, van Engelshoven J, Schouten H, Baeten C, Stassen C. Anorectal function: defecographic measurement in asymptomatic subjects. Radiology 1989;173:137–41.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wald A, Caruana BJ, Freimanis MG, Bauman DH, Hinds JP. Contributions of evacuation proctography and anorectal manometry to evaluation of adults with constipation and defecatory difficulty. Dig Dis Sci 1990;35:481–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Infantino A, Masin A, Pianon P,et al. Role of proctography in severe constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:707–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Selvaggio F, Pesce G, Scotto Di Carlo E, Maffettone V, Canonico S. Evaluation of normal subjects by defecographic technique. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:689–702.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Freimanis MG, Wald A, Caruana B, Bauman DH. Evacuation proctography in normal volunteers. Invest Radiol 1991;26:581–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kuijpers HC. Application of the colorectal laboratory in diagnosis and treatment of functional constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:35–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Fink RL, Roberts LJ, Scott M. The role of manometry, electromyography and radiology in the assessment of intractable constipation. Aust N Z J Surg 1991;61:959–64.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jorge JM, Wexner SD, Ger GC, Salanga VD, Nogueras JJ, Jagelman DG. Cinedefecography and electromyography in the diagnosis of nonrelaxing puborectalis syndrome. Dis Colon Rectum 1993;36:668–76.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Loening-Baucke V. Persistence of chronic constipation in children after biofeedback treatment. Dig Dis Sci 1991;36:153–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Keck JO, Staniunas RJ, Coller JA,et al. Biofeedback training is useful in fecal incontinence but disappointing in constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 1994;37:1271–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Turnbull GK, Ritvo PG. Anal sphincter biofeedback relaxation treatment for women with intractable constipation symptoms. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:530–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Van der Plas RN, Benninga MA, Büller HA,et al. Biofeedback training in treatment of childhood constipation: a randomised controlled study. Lancet 1996;348:776–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Lubowski DZ, Meagher AP, Smart RC, Butler SP. Scintigraphic assessment of colonic function during defaecation. Int J Colorectal Dis 1995;10:91–3.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University Hospital Dijkzigt, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    W. R. Schouten M.D., J. W. Briel M.D., J. J. A. Auwerda M.D., J. H. van Dam M.D. & M. J. Gosselink M.D.

  2. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Dijkzigt, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    A. Z. Ginai M.D.

  3. Departments of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University Hospital Dijkzigt, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    W. C. J. Hop M.Sc.

Authors
  1. W. R. Schouten M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. W. Briel M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. J. A. Auwerda M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. H. van Dam M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. J. Gosselink M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. Z. Ginai M.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. W. C. J. Hop M.Sc.
    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, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, May 7 to 12, 1995. No reprints are available.

About this article

Cite this article

Schouten, W.R., Briel, J.W., Auwerda, J.J.A. et al. Anismus: Fact or fiction?. Dis Colon Rectum 40, 1033–1041 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050925

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050925

Key words

Search

Navigation