Relationship of anal endosonography and manometry to anorectal complaints

被引:25
作者
de Leeuw, JW [1 ]
Vierhout, ME
Struijk, PC
Auwerda, HJ
Bac, DJ
Wallenburg, HCS
机构
[1] Erasme Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[2] Erasme Univ Hosp, Dept Internal Med & Gastroenterol, Ikazia Hosp, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Erasme Univ Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Rotterdam, Netherlands
关键词
anus; endosonography; manometry; perineum; delivery;
D O I
10.1007/s10350-004-6351-5
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
PURPOSE: Thus study was designed to assess the relationship of anal endosonography and manometry to anorectal complaints in the evaluation of females a long time after vaginal delivery complicated by anal sphincter damage. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with anal sphincter damage after delivery, 22 with and 12 without anorectal complaints, and 12 controls without anorectal complaints underwent anal endosonography, manometry, and rectal sensitivity testing. Complaints were assessed by questionnaire. with a median follow-tip of 19 years. RESULTS: Median maximum anal resting pressures were significantly lower in patients with anal sphincter damage with complaints (31 mmHg) than in controls (52 mmHg; P < 0.001). Median maximum anal squeeze pressures were significantly lower in patients with (55 mmHg) and without (69 mmHg) complaints than in controls (112 mmHg; P < 0.001 for both). Maximum anal resting pressures were significantly lower in patients with anorectal complaints after anal sphincter damage than in patients without complaints (P = 0.02). Results of anal manometry showed a large overlap between all groups. Rectal sensitivity showed no significant differences between the three groups. Persisting sphincter defects, shown by anal endosonography, were significantly more present in patients with anal sphincter damage after delivery with (86 percent) and Without (67 percent) complaints than in controls (8 percent; P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively). No differences in the number of echocardiographically proven sphincter defects were found between patients with or without anorectal complaints after anal sphincter damage CONCLUSIONS: Echographically proven sphincter defects are strongly associated with a history of anal sphincter damage during delivery. Sphincter defects are present in the majority of patients with anorectal complaints. Anal manometry provides little additional therapeutic information when performed after anal endosonography in patients with anorectal complaints after anal sphincter damage during delivery.
引用
收藏
页码:1004 / 1010
页数:7
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
CHALIHA C, 1999, FETAL MATERN MED REV, V11, P41
[2]  
Cook TA, 1998, BRIT J SURG, V85, P293
[3]   ANAL ENDOSONOGRAPHY - RELATIONSHIP WITH ANAL MANOMETRY AND NEUROPHYSIOLOGIC TESTS [J].
FELTBERSMA, RJF ;
CUESTA, MA ;
KOOREVAAR, M ;
STRIJERS, RLM ;
MEUWISSEN, SGM ;
DERCKSEN, EJ ;
WESDORP, RIC .
DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 1992, 35 (10) :944-949
[4]   Third degree obstetric tears; outcome after primary repair [J].
Gjessing, H ;
Backe, B ;
Sahlin, Y .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1998, 77 (07) :736-740
[5]   Objective methods cannot predict anal incontinence after primary repair of extensive anal tears [J].
Goffeng, AR ;
Andersch, B ;
Andersson, M ;
Berndtsson, I ;
Hulten, L ;
Oresland, T .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1998, 77 (04) :439-443
[6]   ANAL-SPHINCTER FUNCTION AFTER DELIVERY - A PROSPECTIVE-STUDY IN WOMEN WITH SPHINCTER RUPTURE AND CONTROLS [J].
HAADEM, K ;
DAHLSTROM, JA ;
LINGMAN, G .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 1990, 35 (01) :7-13
[7]  
Johanson JF, 1996, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V91, P33
[8]   OBSTETRIC DAMAGE AND FECAL INCONTINENCE [J].
KAMM, MA .
LANCET, 1994, 344 (8924) :730-733
[9]   Faecal incontinence after childbirth [J].
MacArthur, C ;
Bick, DE ;
Keighley, MRB .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 1997, 104 (01) :46-50
[10]   COMMUNITY-BASED PREVALENCE OF ANAL INCONTINENCE [J].
NELSON, R ;
NORTON, N ;
CAUTLEY, E ;
FURNER, S .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (07) :559-561