Physiologic and clinical assessment of patients with rectoanal intussusception

被引:11
|
作者
Choi J.S. [1 ]
Salum M.R. [1 ]
Moreira Jr. H. [1 ]
Weiss E.G. [1 ]
Nogueras J.J. [1 ]
Wexner S.D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
关键词
Anorectal physiology; Cinedefecography; Manometry; Mucosal prolapse; Rectoanal intussusception;
D O I
10.1007/s101510050051
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The aims of this study were (1) to establish an objective baseline to assess the severity of rectoanal intussusception by the depth of rectal infolding and (2) to compare manometric and defecographic parameters in patients to validate this new objective classification of intussusception. Between July 1988 and September 1997, 224 patients with rectoanal intussusception confirmed by cinedefecography who underwent anal manometry were evaluated. These patients were classified into two groups based on the depth infolding: group I (n = 163), intussusception < 10 mm infolding seen on the rectal wall; and group II (n = 61), intussusception ≥ 10 mm infolding extending into the anal canal. There were 32 males and 192 females, of a mean age of 61 years (range, 19-88). Patients were subdivided into 5 groups according to their dominant complaint. Complaints were constipation with incomplete evacuation (n = 113, 69.3%), fecal incontinence (n = 28, 17.2%), rectal pain (n = 19, 11.7%) and others (n = 3, 1.8%) in group I, and constipation (n = 34, 55.7%), sensation of prolapse (n = 14, 23.0%) and others (n = 13, 21.3%) in group II. There was a significant difference in the degree of intussusception relative to sensation of prolapse (p < 0.05). Manometry showed that the rectoanal inhibitory reflex was absent more often in patients in group II (19.7% vs. 8.5%) than in group I (p < 0.05). Moreover, group I patients had higher mean and maximum squeeze pressures when compared to group II (78.1 vs. 62.5, 105.9 vs. 88.8 mm Hg, respectively, p < 0.05). The incidences of combined cinedefecographic anomalies, such as rectocele, sigmoidocele and perineal descent, were high: 85.2% in group II and 79.1% in group I (p > 0.05). In conclusion, this study showed manometric and symptomatic differences relative to the size of the intussusception. The decreased pressure seen in patients with larger intussusception may auger for the subsequent development of incontinence in these patients.
引用
收藏
页码:29 / 33
页数:4
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [22] Physiological assessment of rectoanal motor function
    Arhan, P
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC GASTROENTEROLOGY AND NUTRITION, 2002, 35 (01): : 25 - 26
  • [23] DOES CONCOMITANT RECTOANAL INTUSSUSCEPTION LIMIT IMPROVEMENTS IN CLINICAL OUTCOME AND QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER SACRAL NERVE STIMULATION FOR FECAL INCONTINENCE?
    Dawes, A.
    Mariscal, J.
    White, P. J.
    Midura, E.
    Sirany, A.
    Lowry, A.
    Jensen, C.
    Thorsen, A.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2022, 65 (05) : 37 - 37
  • [24] Assessment of rectoanal motility and rectocolonic sensitivity in IBS patients with painful diarrhoea.
    Minguez, M
    Moreno, E
    Mora, F
    Pena, A
    Willatt, JMG
    Benages, A
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1997, 112 (04) : A790 - A790
  • [25] Physiologic Dead Space Assessment: Field of Dreams or Clinical Paradigm?
    Dechert, Ronald E.
    RESPIRATORY CARE, 2013, 58 (07) : 1258 - 1259
  • [26] Clinical Characteristics of Adult Functional Constipation Patients with Rectoanal Areflexia and Their Response to Biofeedback Therapy
    Li, Fei
    Wang, Meifeng
    Shah, Syed Hameed Ali
    Jiang, Ya
    Lin, Lin
    Yu, Ting
    Tang, Yurong
    DIAGNOSTICS, 2023, 13 (02)
  • [27] Stapled transanal rectal resection (STARR) for obstructed defecation secondary to rectocoele and rectoanal intussusception: A cautionary tale
    Titu, L.
    Carter, H.
    Dixon, A.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2008, 51 (05) : 638 - 638
  • [28] ASSESSMENT OF PATIENTS WITH RECTAL INTUSSUSCEPTION AND PROLAPSE: IS THIS A PROGRESSIVE SPECTRUM OF DISEASE?
    Murphy, J.
    Boyle, D.
    Bhan, C.
    Chan, C.
    Williams, N.
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2011, 54 (05) : E101 - E101
  • [29] RECTOANAL INHIBITION AND INCONTINENCE IN PATIENTS WITH RECTAL PROLAPSE
    FAROUK, R
    DUTHIE, GS
    MACGREGOR, AB
    BARTOLO, DCC
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1994, 81 (05) : 743 - 746
  • [30] CLINICAL ASPECTS OF INTUSSUSCEPTION
    LARSEN, E
    MILLER, RC
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1972, 124 (01): : 69 - &