Download PDF
Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2021; 34(01): 015-021
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1714246
Review Article

Anorectal Physiology Testing for Prolapse—What Tests are Necessary?

Gifty Kwakye
1   Division of Colorectal Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
,
Lillias Holmes Maguire
1   Division of Colorectal Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Rectal prolapse frequently occurs in conjunction with functional and anatomic abnormalities of the bowel and pelvic floor. Prolapse surgery should have as its goal not only to correct the prolapse, but also to improve function to the greatest extent possible. Careful history-taking and physical exam continue to be the surgeon's best tools to put rectal prolapse in its functional context. Physiologic testing augments this and informs surgical decision-making. Defecography can identify concomitant middle compartment prolapse and pelvic floor hernias, potentially targeting patients for urogynecologic consultation or combined repair. Other tests, including manometry, ultrasound, and electrophysiologic testing, may be of utility in select cases. Here, we provide an overview of available testing options and their individual utility in rectal prolapse.

Keywords

prolapse - manometry - anorectal physiology - defecography


Publication History

Article published online:
04 September 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Bordeianou L, Paquette I, Johnson E. et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2017; 60 (11) 1121-1131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Kim J-H. How to interpret conventional anorectal manometry. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2010; 16 (04) 437-439
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Carrington EV, Heinrich H, Knowles CH. et al. All members of the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group. The international anorectal physiology working group (IAPWG) recommendations: standardized testing protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2020; 32 (01) e13679
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Su H, Peng LH, Sun G. et al. Effect of different body position on anorectal manometry for chronic constipation patients. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 2019; 23 (19) 8493-8500
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Bordeianou LG, Carmichael JC, Paquette IM. et al. Consensus statement of definitions for anorectal physiology testing and pelvic floor terminology (revised). Dis Colon Rectum 2018; 61 (04) 421-427
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Lee YY, Erdogan A, 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 (12) 360
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Rao SS, Azpiroz F, Diamant N, Enck P, Tougas G, Wald A. Minimum standards of anorectal manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2002; 14 (05) 553-559
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Clouse RE, Staiano A. Topography of normal and high-amplitude esophageal peristalsis. Am J Physiol 1993; 265 (6 Pt 1): G1098-G1107
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Gosling J, Plumb A, Taylor SA, Cohen R, Emmanuel AV. High-resolution anal manometry: repeatability, validation, and comparison with conventional manometry. Neurogastroenterol Motil 2019; 31 (06) e13591
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Diamant NE, Kamm MA, Wald A, Whitehead WE. AGA technical review on anorectal testing techniques. Gastroenterology 1999; 116 (03) 735-760
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Rao SS, Patcharatrakul T. Diagnosis and treatment of dyssynergic defecation. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2016; 22 (03) 423-435
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Conklin J. Anorectal manometry. In: Soffer E, Pimentel M, Conklin J. eds. Color Atlas of High Resolution Manometry. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2009: 71-88
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Jorge JM, Habr-Gama A, Wexner SD. Clinical applications and techniques of cinedefecography. Am J Surg 2001; 182 (01) 93-101
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Kim NY, Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Carchman EH, Wald A, Robbins JB. Defecography: an overview of technique, interpretation, and impact on patient care. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2018; 47 (03) 553-568
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Palmer SL, Lalwani N, Bahrami S, Scholz F. Dynamic fluoroscopic defecography: updates on rationale, technique, and interpretation from the Society of Abdominal Radiology Pelvic Floor Disease Focus Panel. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 16 Kim AY. How to interpret a functional or motility test - defecography. J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2011; 17 (04) 416-420
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Colaiacomo MC, Masselli G, Polettini E. et al. Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor: a pictorial review. Radiographics 2009; 29 (03) e35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Kanmaniraja D, Arif-Tiwari H, Palmer SL. et al. MR defecography review. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2019
    CrossrefPubMed
  • 19 Bertschinger KM, Hetzer FH, Roos JE, Treiber K, Marincek B, Hilfiker PR. Dynamic MR imaging of the pelvic floor performed with patient sitting in an open-magnet unit versus with patient supine in a closed-magnet unit. Radiology 2002; 223 (02) 501-508
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Solopova AE, Hetzer FH, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR defecography: prospective comparison of two rectal enema compositions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008; 190 (02) W118-24
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Wexner SD, Marchetti F, Salanga VD, Corredor C, Jagelman DG. Neurophysiologic assessment of the anal sphincters. Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34 (07) 606-612
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Beck A. Elecromyographische untersuchungen am sphincter ani. Arch Physiol. 1930; 224: 278-292
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Enck P, von Giesen HJ, Schäfer A. et al. Comparison of anal sonography with conventional needle electromyography in the evaluation of anal sphincter defects. Am J Gastroenterol 1996; 91 (12) 2539-2543
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Beer-Gabel M, Carter D. Comparison of dynamic transperineal ultrasound and defecography for the evaluation of pelvic floor disorders. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015; 30 (06) 835-841
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Paquette IM, Varma MG, Kaiser AM, Steele SR, Rafferty JF. The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons' clinical practice guideline for the treatment of fecal incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 2015; 58 (07) 623-636
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 Luukkonen P, Mikkonen U, Järvinen H. Abdominal rectopexy with sigmoidectomy vs. rectopexy alone for rectal prolapse: a prospective, randomized study. Int J Colorectal Dis 1992; 7 (04) 219-222
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 McKee RF, Lauder JC, Poon FW, Aitchison MA, Finlay IG. A prospective randomized study of abdominal rectopexy with and without sigmoidectomy in rectal prolapse. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1992; 174 (02) 145-148
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Tou S, Brown SR, Nelson RL. Surgery for complete (full-thickness) rectal prolapse in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; (11) CD001758
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Chun SW, Pikarsky AJ, You SY. et al. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy for rectal prolapse: role of levatorplasty. Tech Coloproctol 2004; 8 (01) 3-8 , discussion 8–9
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Kaufman HS, Buller JL, Thompson JR. et al. Dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and cystocolpoproctography alter surgical management of pelvic floor disorders. Dis Colon Rectum 2001; 44 (11) 1575-1583 , discussion 1583–1584
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Groenendijk AG, Birnie E, de Blok S. et al. Clinical-decision taking in primary pelvic organ prolapse; the effects of diagnostic tests on treatment selection in comparison with a consensus meeting. Int Urogynecol J Pelvic Floor Dysfunct 2009; 20 (06) 711-719
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Zafar A, Seretis C, Feretis M. et al. Comparative study of magnetic resonance defaecography and evacuation proctography in the evaluation of obstructed defaecation. Colorectal Dis 2017; 19 (06) O204-O209
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Glasgow SC, Birnbaum EH, Kodner IJ, Fleshman JW, Dietz DW. Preoperative anal manometry predicts continence after perineal proctectomy for rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 2006; 49 (07) 1052-1058
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Williams JG, Wong WD, Jensen L, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM. Incontinence and rectal prolapse: a prospective manometric study. Dis Colon Rectum 1991; 34 (03) 209-216
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Schultz I, Mellgren A, Nilsson BY, Dolk A, Holmström B. Preoperative electrophysiologic assessment cannot predict continence after rectopexy. Dis Colon Rectum 1998; 41 (11) 1392-1398
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Birnbaum EH, Stamm L, Rafferty JF, Fry RD, Kodner IJ, Fleshman JW. Pudendal nerve terminal motor latency influences surgical outcome in treatment of rectal prolapse. Dis Colon Rectum 1996; 39 (11) 1215-1221
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Johansen OB, Wexner SD, Daniel N, Nogueras JJ, Jagelman DG. Perineal rectosigmoidectomy in the elderly. Dis Colon Rectum 1993; 36 (08) 767-772
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar