You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Neurogastroenterology
Diagnostic accuracy study of anorectal manometry for diagnosis of dyssynergic defecation
  1. Ugo Grossi1,
  2. Emma V Carrington1,
  3. Adil E Bharucha2,
  4. Emma J Horrocks1,
  5. S Mark Scott1,
  6. Charles H Knowles1
  1. 1National Centre for Bowel Research and Surgical Innovation and GI Physiology Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  2. 2Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ugo Grossi, National Centre for Bowel Research and Surgical Innovation—Digestive Disease, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary, University of London, 4 Newark Street, London E1 2AT, UK; u.grossi{at}qmul.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective The diagnostic accuracy of anorectal manometry (AM), which is necessary to diagnose functional defecatory disorders (FDD), is unknown. Using blinded analysis and standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy, we evaluated whether AM could discriminate between asymptomatic controls and patients with functional constipation (FC).

Design Derived line plots of anorectal pressure profiles during simulated defecation were independently analysed in random order by three expert observers blinded to health status in 85 women with FC and 85 age-matched asymptomatic healthy volunteers (HV). Using accepted criteria, these pressure profiles were characterised as normal (ie, increased rectal pressure coordinated with anal relaxation) or types I–IV dyssynergia. Interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy were determined.

Results Blinded consensus-based assessment disclosed a normal pattern in 16/170 (9%) of all participants and only 11/85 (13%) HV. The combined frequency of dyssynergic patterns (I–IV) was very similar in FC (80/85 (94%)) and HV (74/85 (87%)). Type I dyssynergia (‘paradoxical’ contraction) was less prevalent in FC (17/85 (20%) than in HV (31/85 (36.5%), p=0.03). After statistical correction, only type IV dyssynergia was moderately useful for discriminating between FC (39/85 (46%)) and HV (17/85 (20%)) (p=0.001, positive predictive value=70.0%, positive likelihood ratio=2.3). Interobserver agreement was substantial or moderate for identifying a normal pattern, dyssynergia types I and IV, and FDD, and fair for types II and III.

Conclusions While the interpretation of AM patterns is reproducible, nearly 90% of HV have a pattern that is currently regarded as ‘abnormal’ by AM. Hence, AM is of limited utility for distinguishing between FC and HV.

  • ANAL SPHINCTER
  • ANORECTAL DISORDERS
  • ANORECTAL FUNCTION
  • ANORECTAL PHYSIOLOGY
  • COLORECTAL MOTILITY

https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308835

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Significance of this study

    What is already known on this subject?

    • Most patients with functional constipation (FC) have symptoms characterised by unsatisfactory defecation. These symptoms and objective findings of impaired evacuation, including measurement of anorectal pressure changes during simulated defecation with anorectal manometry (AM), are used to diagnose functional defecation disorder (FDD) and characterise subtypes of FDD.

    • It is essential to accurately diagnose FDD because these conditions are more appropriately treated with pelvic floor biofeedback therapy than laxatives.

    • Recent studies using high-resolution manometry suggest that even healthy people have AM findings traditionally associated with FDD. The accuracy of AM for diagnosis of FDD is thus unclear.

    What are the new findings?

    • Based on blinded evaluation of the anorectal pressure profile during simulated evacuation in 170 female participants (85 with significant FC and 85 age-matched asymptomatic controls) by three expert observers blinded to health status and using standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy, approximately 90% of healthy volunteers and patients with FC had an abnormal anorectal pressure profile during simulated defecation.

    • Among the patterns, only type IV dyssynergia was more prevalent (p=0.001) in patients with FC than controls (46% vs 20%), leading to a ‘small’ increase in the likelihood ratio. This pattern is characterised by an inadequate rectal propulsive force and impaired anal relaxation.

    • Interobserver agreement was substantial or moderate for diagnosis of FDD, normal pattern and dyssynergia types I and IV and fair for types II and III.

    How might it impact on clinical practice in the foreseeable future?

    • These findings suggest that high-resolution AM is of limited accuracy for discriminating between healthy people and patients with FC. The role of AM for diagnosing FDD merits further study.

    Introduction

    Functional constipation (FC) is a common disorder with a pooled prevalence in the community of 14% and significant cost and healthcare use.1 Disordered defecation, which is diagnosed by anorectal tests, is common in patients with medically refractory chronic constipation.2–4 The Rome criteria for functional defecation disorder (FDD) implicate disordered evacuation due to an inadequate rectoanal pressure gradient resulting from paradoxical contraction or inadequate relaxation of the pelvic floor muscles and/or to inadequate rectal propulsive forces during defecation.5–7 Thus to fulfil current (Rome III) diagnostic criteria for FDD, patients with FC must have evidence of two of the following criteria: (a) impaired evacuation, (b) inappropriate contraction of the pelvic floor muscles or <20% relaxation of basal resting pressure and (c) inadequate propulsive forces.5 While impaired evacuation is usually assessed by balloon expulsion8 or imaging,9 ,10 criteria (b) and (c) are assessed by measuring rectal and anal pressures during simulated evacuation (‘push’ manoeuvre) with anorectal manometry (AM).11

    Several expert reviews provide guidance on technical performance and interpretation of AM.11 ,12 Based on limited data in asymptomatic participants in which rectal and anal pressures were simultaneously measured during the push manoeuvre,6 ,13 a reduced rectoanal gradient during simulated evacuation is used to diagnose FDD. Four AM patterns have been defined, all of which are characterised by paradoxical contraction or failure of anal relaxation, that is, dyssynergia.14 These patterns are characterised by a paradoxical increase in anal pressure with (type I) or without (type II) adequate increase in rectal pressure and failure of reduction in anal pressure with (type III) or without (type IV) adequate increase in rectal pressure.

    With the advent of high-resolution manometry,15 the ability of AM to distinguish healthy asymptomatic individuals from those with defecatory symptoms has been questioned16 because contrary to conventional wisdom the rectoanal gradient (ie, the difference between rectal and anal pressure) during simulated evacuation was negative in a majority of asymptomatic women.17 We therefore performed a prospective, blinded assessment of anorectal pressure patterns in women with FC and asymptomatic women with high-resolution AM (HRAM). The conduct and reporting of this study applied standards for reporting diagnostic accuracy (STARD) criteria.18 In the absence of a gold standard for diagnosis of dyssynergia (AM is the current standard), the specific aim was to evaluate the accuracy of AM (index test) in discriminating health from disease (this acting as a surrogate reference standard).

    Methods

    Study population

    Consecutive female patients referred for investigation of FC over a 6-month period (June–December 2013) to the Royal London Hospital (Barts Health NHS Trust) GI Physiology Unit were considered for study enrolment. Healthy asymptomatic female volunteers were recruited by advertisement at Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry during the same period. Prior to arriving for investigation, all participants (FC and healthy volunteers (HV)) completed a comprehensive symptom questionnaire incorporating the Cleveland Clinic Constipation score (CCCS).19 A structured history was also undertaken (medical/surgical and obstetric). Inclusion criteria for FC patients were a diagnosis of FC based on Rome III symptom criteria20 and scoring ≥12 on the CCCS—an indication of severity.21 HV were selected on the basis of exclusion of any significant GI disease, self-reported functional symptoms and CCCS <9 and St Marks Incontinence Score <5.22 Other exclusions included pregnancy or lactation, history of diabetes, cardiovascular, renal or hepatic disease. No specific exclusions were applied for either group that might affect how the test itself performs (limited challenge bias).23 The majority of patients with FC had undergone further specialist evaluations including radio-opaque marker transit studies and barium proctography.9 All data were purposively collected before the index test.

    Technical specifications (index test)

    HRAM was performed in all participants using a solid-state catheter (UniTip: UniSensor AG, Switzerland), of external diameter 12 F, incorporating 12 microtransducers, each of which measured circumferential pressure by means of a unidirectional pressure sensor embedded within silicone gel. Ten of these sensors were spaced 0.8 cm apart, spanning 7.2 cm. The most proximal microtransducer was located within a non-latex balloon 3.3 cm proximal to these. The most distal sensor (located 2 cm below the most distal of the central 10 sensors) was used as an external reference. Before every study, the catheter was immersed in tepid water for at least 3 min to pre-wet the sensors. Sensors were then zeroed to atmospheric pressure. Data acquisition, online visualisation and signal processing were performed using a commercially available manometric system (Solar GI HRM V.9.1, Medical Measurement Systems (MMS), Enschede, the Netherlands). Each participant was instructed to defecate if required prior to investigation. No bowel preparation was given, and all participants were studied in the left lateral position with knees and hips flexed. Prior to catheter insertion, the ability of the participant to understand the commands ‘squeeze’ and ‘push’ was confirmed by digital rectal examination, the latter by asking the participant to ‘bear down as if to defecate’.15 All test manoeuvres were performed in accordance with published international minimum standards11 using a previously published protocol.15 The catheter was inserted into the anorectum with the distal two microtransducers visible (the second most distal being located immediately outside of the anal verge). Following a 3 min run-in period for the purpose of familiarisation, manoeuvres were performed in a standard sequence with a 30 s recovery period between each. For examination of simulated defecation, the participant was asked to ‘push’ as practised for 5 s; this manoeuvre was performed twice.11 All tests were performed by one of three independent GI physiology practitioners with experience of lower GI physiological testing (SMS, EVC and UG).

    Line-plot traces of rectal and anal pressure changes were extracted from individual HRAM pressure traces (approximately 3–6 sensors in the rectum and approximately 4–7 spanning the anal canal depending on anal canal length) by an automated process, using the ‘e-sleeve’, or ‘area of interest’ function within the colour contour plot (HRM V.9.1, MMS). This is in accordance with other recent HRAM methodological publications.24 Rectal and anal line plots were automatically derived from the maximum pressure within each region at all recorded time points during the second push manoeuvre. This method was selected to avoid the implicit bias conferred by selecting what is often termed a ‘representative’ line plot.25 However, since such automated selection might confer a performance bias, original HRAM colour contour plots were also retained for analysis.

    Definition, cut-offs and categories of the results of the index test

    HRAM-derived line-plot images from both patients with FC and HV were collated into a single database with all identifiers removed. Rectal and anal pressure changes14 during the second 'push' manoeuvre from each individual were presented electronically in a computer-generated random order. Images were circulated to three observers (SMS, EVC and AEB) who independently classified test results based on published criteria derived from standard manometry14 and expert international guidance:11

    1. normal—an adequate increase in rectal pressure (≥40 mm Hg) accompanied by a simultaneous reduction in anal pressure;

    2. type I dyssynergia—an adequate increase in rectal pressure (≥40 mm Hg) accompanied by a paradoxical simultaneous increase in anal pressure;

    3. type II dyssynergia—an inadequate increase in rectal pressure (<40 mm Hg) (poor propulsive force) accompanied by a paradoxical simultaneous increase in anal pressure;

    4. type III dyssynergia—an adequate increase in rectal pressure (≥40 mm Hg) accompanied by failure of reduction in anal pressure (≤20% baseline pressure);

    5. type IV dyssynergia—an inadequate increase in rectal pressure of (<40 mm Hg) (poor propulsive force) accompanied by failure of reduction in anal pressure (≤20% baseline pressure).

    Assimilation of the above derived two further diagnoses:

    1. Failed anal relaxation (FAR): any of four dyssynergia subtypes.

    2. FDD: a combination of type II or type IV dyssynergia. In patients with FC, both subtypes are independently sufficient to fulfil a diagnosis of FDD without recourse to other tests.5

    If changes in rectal and anal pressure were not consistent with any of the above-recognised patterns, these were reported as unclassified. To generate a final single result (for STARD analysis), disagreement between the three independent observers was resolved by consensus discussion mediated by the senior investigator (CHK).

    The same methods were used to classify tracings according to recent criteria derived from HRAM.17 In this classification, two phenotypes (‘hybrid’ and ‘low rectal’) closely resemble type II and IV dyssynergia, respectively. A third novel (‘high anal’) pattern combined high anal pressures at rest and during evacuation (resembling the classical description of ‘anismus’).26 This phenotype was therefore also studied using the published cut-off of >92 mm Hg to define high resting pressure.26

    Finally, original HRAM colour contour plots were reviewed and classified by the same blinded multiobserver methodology.

    Statistical analysis

    All data were analysed in accordance with STARD guidance.18 Interobserver agreement was determined using kappa statistics.27 Proportions of FC and HV participants with each finding were compared using χ2 test with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Standard diagnostic accuracy metrics were calculated and presented with CIs: test sensitivity and specificity; positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) and likelihood ratios (LRs). LRs were interpreted according to standard definitions.28 Post hoc analysis was performed using software functions to generate mean values for raw pressure data. These were analysed between groups as continuous variables using Student t tests; receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to explore diagnostic utility and optimal cut-offs. All data were analysed using Stata V.10.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA). Statistical significance was considered as p<0.05 (excepting Bonferroni correction).

    Results

    Study population

    A total of 85 patients with FC and 85 HV meeting selection criteria formed the study cohort. Patients with FC were slightly older than HV (mean age 46 vs 42 years) and were more likely to be parous (82% vs 59%). All patients with FC had a CCCS ≥12 (median 17, IQR 13–19), whereas no HV had a CCCS >5 (median 1, IQR 0–2). The findings for individual CCCS symptom domains and Rome III criteria for FC are shown in table 1. All patients with FC had symptomatic difficulty in evacuating stool from the rectum29 and 21% had no relaxation or paradoxical contraction of puborectalis on digital rectal examination. Barium proctography was performed in 81 patients with FC (four patients exceeded the equipment safety weight limit), of whom 59 (73%) had abnormal defecatory function based on departmental control data (12 (15%) functional only, 33 (41%) dynamic structural only and 14 (17%) both; see online supplementary table S1).9 Balloon expulsion testing was not performed reflecting local practice. Radio-opaque marker transit studies had been performed in 42/85 patients, of whom 18 (43%) had delayed transit. Of these, 17 had concomitant proctographic abnormalities (only one patient had generalised marker distribution and a normal proctogram).

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Characteristics of the study population

    Performance of the index test: interobserver agreement

    Interobserver agreement between the three primary investigators was substantial for diagnosis of FDD (kappa=0.63; 144/170 (84.7%) traces had agreement of all three observers without need for consensus), type I (kappa=0.71) and IV dyssynergia (kappa=0.61); moderate for normal pattern (kappa=0.47) and dyssynergic patterns (FAR; kappa=0.50); and fair for type II (kappa=0.40) and III dyssynergia (kappa=0.35) (see online supplementary table S2).

    Performance of the index test against the reference standard: diagnostic accuracy

    Based on results of consensus, >90% of all participants showed an abnormal pattern of rectoanal coordination during attempted defecation (table 2; figures 1 and 2A, B). A slightly higher proportion of patients with FC compared with HV (94% vs 87%) had abnormal findings. The prevalence of type I dyssynergia was >100% in HV than in FC. The prevalence of type II and III dyssynergia was comparable in HV and FC. Only type IV dyssynergia was found significantly more frequently in patients with FC (46% patients with FC vs 20% HV, p=0.001). Based on synthesis of subtypes II and IV, 51% patients with FC fulfilled AM criteria for FDD vs 28% of HV (p=0.005). Seven per cent of participants showed an inadequate increase in rectal pressure of <40 mm Hg (poor propulsive force), accompanied by a simultaneous reduction in anal pressure. Such changes are not consistent with any recognised patterns14 deriving a fifth category.30 This ‘unclassified’ pattern was equally encountered in patients with FC and HV. These results were consistent regardless of individual observer (see online supplementary table S3).

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Distribution of dyssynergic patterns in the study population after consensus

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Standards for reporting of diagnostic accuracy (STARD) flow chart detailing the study profile. HV, healthy volunteers; FC, functional constipation.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    (A) Examples of line-plot patterns in the study population after consensus. (B) Bar chart showing frequency of abnormal high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) patterns in the study population after consensus. (C) High anal phenotype in a patient with functional constipation (FC) and healthy volunteers (HV) as line plots and raw colour contour trace.

    The diagnostic accuracy for discriminating between FC and HV was poor (table 3). Only type IV dyssynergia had a positive LR of 2.3, indicative of a ‘small’ increase in the likelihood of disease.28 Others suggested no (LR 0.5–1.0) or minimal increase (LR 1.0–2.0) in disease likelihood. These measures of diagnostic accuracy were comparable across observers (see online supplementary table S4).

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and positive likelihood ration (LR+) of HRAM for diagnosis dyssynergic subtypes and FDD

    Performance of the index test using new HRAM criteria and post hoc data analysis

    Overall, 13% of participants had the ‘high anal’ phenotype17 (figure 2C), which was more frequent in patients with FC (14/85 (17%)) than in HV (8/85 (9%)). However, differences were not significant (p=0.25). Considering the poor diagnostic accuracy of HRAM using published pattern-based criteria, software functions were used to generate mean values for relevant variables: resting anal pressure; push rectal pressure, anal pressure change and rectoanal pressure gradient during push manoeuvres (table 4).

    View this table:
    Table 4

    Post hoc analysis of raw software-derived data for defecatory pressure variables

    In keeping with earlier analyses, differences in anal sphincter relaxation during the push manoeuvre between HV and patients were not significant (p=0.88). The rectoanal pressure gradient was found to be negative (ie, <0 mm Hg) for most (84%) participants regardless of health status (median −18 mm Hg; IQR −38 to +1). However, a greater proportion of HV than patients with FC (32/85 (38%) vs 13/85 (15%): OR 0.31 (CI 0.15 to 0.65); p=0.002) had a gradient ≥0 mm Hg. ROC curves of rectoanal pressure gradient and push rectal pressure had an area of 0.639 and 0.675, respectively, for discriminating between FC and HV (figure 3). For the push rectal pressure, cut-offs of <40 mmHg14 and ≤45 mm Hg25 were most useful (ie, sensitivity 53% and 43%; specificity 72% and 81%, respectively) for discriminating between FC and HV. Both parameters correctly identified 62% of patients' health status. Adding other variables to push rectal pressure did not augment its utility for discriminating between FC and HV (data not shown).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for rectoanal pressure gradient (A) and mean rectal pressure (B) in healthy volunteers and patients with functional constipation during simulated defecation (area under the curve: 0.639 and 0.675, respectively).

    Using identical analytical methodology for HRAM colour contour plots yielded almost identical results (see online supplementary table S5).

    Discussion

    There are four main observations in this study. First, among experienced practitioners, interobserver reproducibility for interpreting anorectal pressure patterns during simulated evacuation was acceptable. Second, only 9% of all participants exhibited the accepted13 ‘normal’ pattern of rectoanal coordination (ie, an adequate increase in rectal pressure, accompanied by a simultaneous reduction in anal pressure) during simulated defecation. Third, 94% of patients with FC and 87% of HV had abnormal manometric patterns during simulated defecation; this difference was not statistically significant. Fourth, some individual patterns discriminated FC from HV. Thus, the type IV pattern was modestly useful for discriminating patients with FC from HV (ie, PPV 70%, LR+ 2.3). Subtypes II and IV, which are both characterised by inadequate sphincter relaxation and poor propulsion, were observed in 51% of patients with FC vs 28% of HV with an LR+ of 1.8. The ‘high anal’ phenotype, which is only based on anal pressure, was also found more commonly in patients with FC (17%) than in HV (9%). Hence, measures that rely on the rectal pressure generated during the push manoeuvre were more useful than those that rely on anal pressure alone for discriminating between FC and HV. These findings have implications on the diagnosis and understanding of the pathogenesis of FDD.

    Anal sphincter dyssynergia

    The term dyssynergia originated in urology in the mid-1970s31 and was first used in the context of defecation in 1992.32 Implicit in the term is the failure of coordinated changes in anal sphincter activity. The current study refutes the concept that either a failure of anal relaxation or paradoxical anal contraction, as measured by HRAM, is of pathophysiological significance: these findings were present in 87% of patients with FC and 80% of HV, and there was no difference in absolute pressure data between groups (p=0.88). This finding is not novel. Indeed, the specificity of ‘anismus’,26 defined solely by recruitment of electromyography (EMG) activity, has been questioned by more recent studies.33 ,34 Nevertheless, accepting significant historical differences in methodology, dyssynergia identified by manometry is widely used to diagnose FDD34–37 (table 5). However, it is generally recognised that these studies included relatively small numbers of participants (particularly healthy) while others were uncontrolled.25 Moreover, no previous study has performed blinded assessment of AM tracings or evaluated interobserver reproducibility. Despite these limitations, rectoanal pressure patterns during evacuation are recommended to diagnose and classify FDD.5 ,14

    View this table:
    Table 5

    Prevalence of dyssynergic defecation in healthy volunteers (HV) and patients with constipation (FC) based on manometric criteria

    The recently described ‘high anal’ phenotype,17 characterised by high anal pressures at rest and during evacuation, closely resembles classical ‘anismus’26 and might be useful for discriminating between HV and FC. The current study, which evaluated these parameters on an independent sample, showed that while the pattern was not common (13%), it was approximately twice as frequent in patients with FC compared with HV. Interestingly, the upper 90% centile of the current HV data set was 91 mm Hg and therefore almost identical to the published anismus literature (92 mm Hg).26 A comparison of these data with those obtained by modern techniques has obvious limitations; however, this finding still lends support to the use of the 90th centile cut-off, which was used to define the ‘high anal’ phenotype in the Ratuapli study17 and suggests that anal dyssynergia in the context of very high resting pressures may have some diagnostic utility.

    Rectoanal pressure gradient

    The rectoanal pressure gradient is a function of both rectal propulsive effort and anal relaxation. Half a century ago, Harris and Pope40 observed that the rectoanal gradient during Valsalva manoeuvre was negative (ie, sphincter pressures exceeded rectal pressures) in each of 41 times this manoeuvre was performed in 15 healthy men. This finding was confirmed by Phillips and Edwards,41 who showed that sphincter-ampulla pressure gradient was sustained despite rising intra-abdominal pressure by bearing down in 39 HV. More recently, studies using high-resolution methods16 ,17 have also demonstrated that the rectoanal pressure gradient was negative in 51/62 (82%) asymptomatic women regardless of age (≥ or <50 years) and that there was considerable overlap in gradient between asymptomatic participants and constipated patients with abnormal balloon expulsion times. The current study is in keeping with the latter findings with 79% of all participants showing a negative pressure gradient. Although this variable did significantly differ between FC and HV (p=0.0007), the relatively similar proportions of participants with a negative pressure gradient (patients with FC: 85% vs HV: 62%) would confer limited utility of this variable to distinguish health from disease in practice. This presents an obvious conundrum for the current understanding of defecation. One explanation for this observation was recently provided by Sauter et al,24 who hypothesise that simulated defecation may drive the recording catheter against the wall of the anal canal producing a ‘contact pressure’ that may result in a negative rectoanal pressure gradient.

    Rectal propulsive force

    The current study showed no differences in anal pressure changes between patients with FC and HV but some differences in rectoanal pressure gradient. This can only be explained by differences in rectal pressure during simulated defecation (the term ‘rectal propulsive force’ is generally applied to this phenomenon although force and acceleration are not actually measured) and was confirmed by results (positive LR for type IV dyssynergia) and post hoc analysis of raw data (p=0.0001; area under the curve (AUC) 0.673). This finding also agrees with the principal component analysis performed by Ratuapli et al,17 in which a ‘low rectal’ phenotype was identified with close resemblance to type IV dyssynergia. Interestingly, ROC analysis of data from the current study also showed that the two cited cut-offs for type IV dyssynergia (40 and 45 mm Hg) match exactly those from published diagnostic criteria for low rectal pressure.14 ,25

    The discrepancy between the current results and some previous studies (especially for sphincter dyssynergia) is hard to explain but could reflect anxiety in the laboratory setting,42 ,43 the challenge of replicating the process of defecation in the left lateral position with an empty rectum6 ,13 or variable equipment and protocols.44 Rao et al42 evaluated rectal expulsion of balloon and a stool substitute with synchronous rectoanal pressures during evacuation in the left lateral and seated positions in 25 healthy participants. They showed that the rectoanal gradient during simulated defecation and rectal pressures were higher in the seated than the left lateral position: 36% of asymptomatic participants had dyssynergia during traditional manometry in the recumbent position compared with 20% in the seated position (p<0.05). HRAM pressures during balloon expulsion performed in the seated and left lateral positions have also been compared in 220 women.45 Although rectoanal pressures were not evaluated in the seated position, the rectoanal gradient in participants with normal balloon expulsion in both positions was progressively more negative in those with abnormal balloon expulsion in recumbent only, seated only and both positions. The current study only evaluated participants in the left lateral position and using the recommended minimum standard of two attempts at 5 s ‘push’. Although this is common current practice,11 ,15 the results emphasise that important test variables such as subject position and protocol (eg, number and duration of push attempts) would benefit from international standardisation. The use of an automated ‘area of interest’ function was in accordance with recent HRAM methodological publication24 but is also a potential source of variation from user-selected ‘representative’ line plots.13 To counter this potential criticism, we repeated all analyses using complete HRAM colour contour plots, that is, without restricting analysis to a single sensor-derived line trace. These results, based on a summative global impression of anal and rectal pressure profiles, however yielded identical conclusions.

    Limitations

    Despite attempts to reduce performance bias by study design and adherence to STARD guidance, there were still some weaknesses in the current study. First, it must be acknowledged that health status as a reference standard can only be considered a surrogate of the notional concept of FDD. This approach had to be taken since AM is (in current practice) the only tool to measure sphincter pressures without inclusion of more invasive (and themselves questionable) methods, for example, needle EMG.46 The patients with FC studied all met symptomatic criteria for a defecation disorder as defined by the recent American College of Gastroenterology guidance29 and severity criteria based on CCCS cut-off of 12 points.21 The majority of those tested (73%) also had evidence of impaired evacuation on barium proctography. Further, only one patient had a generalised disturbance of colonic transit in the absence of abnormal proctography, that is, a probable primary disturbance of colonic motility. While the use of the balloon evacuation test would undoubtedly have provided further phenotypic information in the patient cohort as in other recent studies that show concordance between balloon expulsion time and dyssynergia,8 ,47 it must be recognised that the main driver of poor manometric discriminant ability was not the failure to ‘enrich’ or limit the FC population to those with perfectly defined defecatory dysfunction but rather the observation that a similar majority of HVs also had evidence of dyssynergic defecation.

    Second, the definition of reference standard was made before the index test; this is a weakness that makes the index test in effect retrospective but a necessary feature of design. It would be impractical to recruit participants of unknown health status for HRAM testing and use the test result to predict symptom status because only a minority would have constipation due to defecatory dysfunction. Nevertheless, investigations and their interpretation were performed completely blind to health status by multiple observers who reached almost identical conclusions. Finally, while HRAM trace interpretation was completely blind to health status, all three observers were aware that the overall data set contained an equal mix of 85 patients with FC and 85 HV participants. However, this equal split did not appear to influence the observers, one of whom defined nearly all presented traces (95%) as abnormal (see online supplementary table S2). It seems unlikely that the current study results are not purely a function of the new technology given the success of HRAM methods and their almost universal adoption in the study of oesophageal function48 (an organ with much functional homology to the anorectum).

    Clinical significance

    The results of this study do not completely negate the value of AM in the diagnosis of FDD and subtypes. Rather, integration of the pattern classification systems proposed by Rao,14 the new physiological phenotypes proposed by Ratuapli et al17 and the current data provide for potential modification of existing disease classification and guidance. In summary:

    1. Anal sphincter dyssynergia is not a pathophysiological finding except in the relatively small proportion of patients in which this is accompanied by high resting tone. With some systems, the cut-off of 92 mm Hg26 to define high resting pressure appears valid.

    2. Type IV dyssynergia14 is useful for distinguishing disease from health. Either of the published cut-offs (<4014 or ≤45 mm Hg25) are valid for defining low rectal pressure. The dominant effect of low rectal pressure in the current study suggests that the previously proposed ‘low rectal’ phenotype17 may be a more appropriate diagnostic term.

    Further, the results do not negate the value of AM in the management of FC. AM is used with integrated balloon catheters to guide behavioural therapy using direct visual biofeedback with numerous trials attesting to the general success of this therapeutic approach49–51 with associated increases in rectoanal pressure gradient, reflecting improved rectoanal coordination.13 The current study did not evaluate this role for AM.

    In conclusion, the present data obtained by blinded multiobserver assessment, and in a relatively large sample size, suggest that the interpretation of AM patterns is reproducible. However, nearly 90% of HV have a pattern that is currently regarded as ‘abnormal’ by AM. Hence, AM is of limited utility for distinguishing between FC and HV. Taken together with other recent studies,16 ,17 these findings reinforce the need to re-evaluate the role of AM with high-resolution or high-definition catheter systems52 for diagnosing dyssynergic defecation.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Suares NC,
      2. Ford AC
      . Prevalence of, and risk factors for, chronic idiopathic constipation in the community: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:1582–91; quiz 1, 92. doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.164
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Bharucha AE,
      2. Pemberton JH,
      3. Locke GR III.
      . American Gastroenterological Association technical review on constipation. Gastroenterology 2013;144:218–38. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.10.028
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Cook IJ,
      2. Talley NJ,
      3. Benninga MA, et al
      . Chronic constipation: overview and challenges. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2009;21(Suppl 2):1–8. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2982.2009.01399.x
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    4. ↵
      1. Ragg J,
      2. McDonald R,
      3. Hompes R, et al
      . Isolated colonic inertia is not usually the cause of chronic constipation. Colorectal Dis 2011;13:1299–302. doi:10.1111/j.1463-1318.2010.02455.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    5. ↵
      1. Bharucha AE,
      2. Wald A,
      3. Enck P, et al
      . Functional anorectal disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1510–18. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.064
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    6. ↵
      1. Rao SS,
      2. Hatfield R,
      3. Soffer E, et al
      . Manometric tests of anorectal function in healthy adults. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:773–83. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.00950.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    7. ↵
      1. Bharucha AE,
      2. Croak AJ,
      3. Gebhart JB, et al
      . Comparison of rectoanal axial forces in health and functional defecatory disorders. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2006;290:G1164–9. doi:10.1152/ajpgi.00487.2005
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    8. ↵
      1. Chiarioni G,
      2. Kim SM,
      3. Vantini I, et al
      . Validation of the balloon evacuation test: reproducibility and agreement with findings from anorectal manometry and electromyography. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;12:2049–54. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2014.03.013
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Palit S,
      2. Bhan C,
      3. Lunniss PJ, et al
      . Evacuation proctography: a reappraisal of normal variability. Colorectal Dis 2014;16:538–46. doi:10.1111/codi.12595
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Halligan S,
      2. Malouf A,
      3. Bartram CI, et al
      . Predictive value of impaired evacuation at proctography in diagnosing anismus. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:633–6. doi:10.2214/ajr.177.3.1770633
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. ↵
      1. Rao SS,
      2. Azpiroz F,
      3. Diamant N, et al
      . Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2002;14:553–9. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2982.2002.00352.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    12. ↵
      1. Scott SM,
      2. Gladman MA
      . Manometric, sensorimotor, and neurophysiologic evaluation of anorectal function. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2008;37:511–38, vii. doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2008.06.010
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Rao SS,
      2. Welcher KD,
      3. Leistikow JS
      . Obstructive defecation: a failure of rectoanal coordination. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93:1042–50. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.1998.00326.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. ↵
      1. Rao SS
      . Dyssynergic defecation and biofeedback therapy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2008;37:569–86, viii. doi:10.1016/j.gtc.2008.06.011
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Carrington EV,
      2. Brokjaer A,
      3. Craven H, et al
      . Traditional measures of normal anal sphincter function using high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) in 115 healthy volunteers. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014;26:625–35. doi:10.1111/nmo.12307
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. ↵
      1. Noelting J,
      2. Ratuapli SK,
      3. Bharucha AE, et al
      . Normal values for high-resolution anorectal manometry in healthy women: effects of age and significance of rectoanal gradient. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1530–6. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.221
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. ↵
      1. Ratuapli SK,
      2. Bharucha AE,
      3. Noelting J, et al
      . Phenotypic identification and classification of functional defecatory disorders using high-resolution anorectal manometry. Gastroenterology 2013;144:314–22.e2. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.10.049
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    18. ↵
      1. Bossuyt PM,
      2. Reitsma JB,
      3. Bruns DE, et al
      . The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:W1–12. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Mohammed SD,
      2. Lunniss PJ,
      3. Zarate N, et al
      . Joint hypermobility and rectal evacuatory dysfunction: an etiological link in abnormal connective tissue? Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010;22:1085–e283. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2982.2010.01562.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Longstreth GF,
      2. Thompson WG,
      3. Chey WD, et al
      . Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1480–91. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.11.061
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    21. ↵
      1. Agachan F,
      2. Chen T,
      3. Pfeifer J, et al
      . A constipation scoring system to simplify evaluation and management of constipated patients. Dis Colon Rectum 1996;39:681–5. doi:10.1007/BF02056950
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Vaizey CJ,
      2. Carapeti E,
      3. Cahill JA, et al
      . Prospective comparison of faecal incontinence grading systems. Gut 1999;44:77–80. doi:10.1136/gut.44.1.77
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. ↵
      1. Philbrick JT,
      2. Horwitz RI,
      3. Feinstein AR
      . Methodologic problems of exercise testing for coronary artery disease: groups, analysis and bias. Am J Cardiol 1980;46:807–12. doi:10.1016/0002-9149(80)90432-4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Sauter M,
      2. Heinrich H,
      3. Fox M, et al
      . Toward more accurate measurements of anorectal motor and sensory function in routine clinical practice: validation of high-resolution anorectal manometry and Rapid Barostat Bag measurements of rectal function. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014;26:685–95. doi:10.1111/nmo.12317
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Rao SS,
      2. Mudipalli RS,
      3. Stessman M, et al
      . Investigation of the utility of colorectal function tests and Rome II criteria in dyssynergic defecation (Anismus). Neurogastroenterol Motil 2004;16:589–96. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2982.2004.00526.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    26. ↵
      1. Preston DM,
      2. Lennard-Jones JE
      . Anismus in chronic constipation. Dig Dis Sci 1985;30:413–18. doi:10.1007/BF01318172
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    27. ↵
      1. Landis JR,
      2. Koch GG
      . Measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74. doi:10.2307/2529310
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. McGee S
      . Simplifying likelihood ratios. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17:646–9. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10750.x
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
    29. ↵
      1. Wald A,
      2. Bharucha AE,
      3. Cosman BC, et al
      . ACG clinical guideline: management of benign anorectal disorders. Am J Gastroenterol 2014;109:1141–57; (Quiz) 058. doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.190
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    30. ↵
      1. Bertiaux-Vandaele N,
      2. Youmba SB,
      3. Belmonte L, et al
      . The expression and the cellular distribution of the tight junction proteins are altered in irritable bowel syndrome patients with differences according to the disease subtype. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:2165–73. doi:10.1038/ajg.2011.257
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Andersen JT,
      2. Bradley WE
      . The syndrome of detrusor-sphincter dyssynergia. J Urol 1976;116:493–5. doi:10.1111/j.1464-410X.1976.tb06689.x
      OpenUrlPubMed
    32. ↵
      1. Merkel IS,
      2. Wald A
      . Training for straining: biofeedback for pelvic floor dyssynergia. Am J Gastroenterol 1992;87:1223–4.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Schouten WR,
      2. Briel JW,
      3. Auwerda JJ, et al
      . Anismus: fact or fiction? Dis Colon Rectum 1997;40:1033–41. doi:10.1007/BF02050925
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    34. ↵
      1. Roberts JP,
      2. Womack NR,
      3. Hallan RI, et al
      . Evidence from dynamic integrated proctography to redefine anismus. Br J Surg 1992;79:1213–15. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800791140
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. ↵
      1. Kerrigan DD,
      2. Lucas MG,
      3. Sun WM, et al
      . Idiopathic constipation associated with impaired urethrovesical and sacral reflex function. Br J Surg 1989;76:748–51. doi:10.1002/bjs.1800760735
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. ↵
      1. Wald A,
      2. Caruana BJ,
      3. Freimanis MG, et al
      . Contributions of evacuation proctography and anorectal manometry to evaluation of adults with constipation and defecatory difficulty. Dig Dis Sci 1990;35:481–7. doi:10.1007/BF01536923
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    37. ↵
      1. Merkel IS,
      2. Locher J,
      3. Burgio K, et al
      . Physiologic and psychologic characteristics of an elderly population with chronic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol 1993;88:1854–9.
      OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
      1. Barnes PR,
      2. 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. doi:10.1007/BF01660715
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Voderholzer WA,
      2. Neuhaus DA,
      3. Klauser AG, et al
      . Paradoxical sphincter contraction is rarely indicative of anismus. Gut 1997;41:258–62. doi:10.1136/gut.41.2.258
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    40. ↵
      1. Harris LD,
      2. Pope CE II.
      . “Squeeze” vs. resistance: an evaluation of the mechanism of sphincter competence. J Clin Invest 1964;43:2272–8. doi:10.1172/JCI105101
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    41. ↵
      1. Phillips SF,
      2. Edwards DA
      . Some aspects of anal continence and defaecation. Gut 1965;6:396–406. doi:10.1136/gut.6.4.396
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    42. ↵
      1. Rao SS,
      2. Kavlock R,
      3. Rao S
      . Influence of body position and stool characteristics on defecation in humans. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:2790–6. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00827.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    43. ↵
      1. Duthie GS,
      2. Bartolo DC
      . Anismus: the cause of constipation? Results of investigation and treatment. World J Surg 1992;16:831–5. doi:10.1007/BF02066978
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    44. ↵
      1. Carrington EV,
      2. Grossi U,
      3. Knowles CH, et al
      . Normal values for high-resolution anorectal manometry: a time for consensus and collaboration. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2014;26:1356–7. doi:10.1111/nmo.12364
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Ratuapli S,
      2. Bharucha AE,
      3. Harvey D, et al
      . Comparison of rectal balloon expulsion test in seated and left lateral positions. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2013;25:e813–20. doi:10.1111/nmo.12208
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Bharucha AE,
      2. Rao SS
      . An update on anorectal disorders for gastroenterologists. Gastroenterology 2014;146:37–45.e2. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.10.062
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    47. ↵
      1. Minguez M,
      2. Herreros B,
      3. Sanchiz V, et al
      . Predictive value of the balloon expulsion test for excluding the diagnosis of pelvic floor dyssynergia in constipation. Gastroenterology 2004;126:57–62. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.044
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    48. ↵
      1. Bredenoord AJ,
      2. Fox M,
      3. Kahrilas PJ, et al
      . Chicago classification criteria of esophageal motility disorders defined in high resolution esophageal pressure topography. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2012;24(Suppl 1):57–65. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2982.2011.01834.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    49. ↵
      1. Heymen S,
      2. Scarlett Y,
      3. Jones K, et al
      . Randomized, controlled trial shows biofeedback to be superior to alternative treatments for patients with pelvic floor dyssynergia-type constipation. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50:428–41. doi:10.1007/s10350-006-0814-9
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    50. ↵
      1. Rao SS,
      2. Seaton K,
      3. Miller M, et al
      . Randomized controlled trial of biofeedback, sham feedback, and standard therapy for dyssynergic defecation. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;5:331–8. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2006.12.023
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. ↵
      1. Rao SS,
      2. Valestin J,
      3. Brown CK, et al
      . Long-term efficacy of biofeedback therapy for dyssynergic defecation: randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:890–6. doi:10.1038/ajg.2010.53
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    52. ↵
      1. Lee YY,
      2. Erdogan A,
      3. Rao SS
      . High resolution and high definition anorectal manometry and pressure topography: diagnostic advance or a new kid on the block? Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2013;15:360. doi:10.1007/s11894-013-0360-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

      Files in this Data Supplement:

    Footnotes

    • Contributors All authors were responsible for the conception and design of the study. UG collected the data. UG and CHK performed the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. All authors participated in the analysis and interpretation of the results and critical revision of the manuscript.

    • Competing interests AEB is supported by NIH grant R01 DK78924. AEB receives grant support and consulting income from Medspira and has licensed intellectual property on an anorectal manometry device to Medspira. AEB has also filed a patent application for a device related to anorectal manometry with Given Imaging.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

    • Ethics approval Queen Mary University Research Ethics Committee (ref QMREC 2010/74 and QMREC 2013/12).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.