Abstract
PURPOSE: Maximum resting and squeeze pressures have been the most widely employed parameters for manometric assessment of the anal sphincters. However, a single maximum value may not always be the best assessment. METHODS: The aim of this study was to compare mean and maximum resting and mean and maximum squeeze pressures in a large sample population. All manometric pressure profiles were reviewed by a single individual blinded to the patient's age and diagnosis. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-six patients with a measurable high-pressure zone were included in this study. The study population was comprised of 279 females and 186 males. A significant difference was found between mean (56.26 mmHg) and maximum (79.2 mmHg) resting pressures (P<0.01) and also between mean (81.25 mmHg) and maximum (119.50 mmHg) squeeze pressures (P<0.01). A significant difference (P<0.01) was also observed when compared by length of the high-pressure zone. CONCLUSION: The measurement, documentation, and reporting of mean resting and mean squeeze pressures provide a better perspective of anal manometric results, since the two sets of values are significantly different (P<0.01), regardless of the anal canal length. Therefore, these data support the standardized evaluation of both mean and maximum pressures in individual patients and in published series.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Loening-Baucke V, Anuras S. Anorectal maometry in healthy elderly subjects. Am J Gastroenterol 1985;80:50–3.
Taylor BM, Beart RW Jr, Phillips SF. Longitudinal and radial variations in the human anal sphincter. Gastroenterology 1984;86:693–7.
McHugh SM, Diamant NE. Effect of age, gender, and parity on anal canal pressures. Contribution of impaired anal sphincter function to fecal incontinence. Dig Dis Sci 1987;37:726–36.
Gibbons CP, Bannister JJ, Trowbridge EA, Read NW. An analysis of anal sphincter pressure and anal compliance in normal subjects. Int J Colorectal Dis 1986;1:231–7.
Felt-Bersma RJ, Klinkenberg-Knol EC, Meuwissen SG. Anorectal function investigations in incontinent and continent patients. Differences and discriminatory value. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:479–86.
Batignani G, Monaci I, Ficari F, Tonelli F. What affects continence after anterior resection of the rectum? Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:329–35.
Sainio AP, Voutilainen PE, Husa AI. Recovery of anal sphincter function following transabdominal repair of rectal prolapse: cause of improved continence? Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:816–21.
Fleshman JW, Dreznik Z, Fry RD, Kodner IJ. Anal sphincter repair for obstetric injury: manometric evaluation of functional results. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:1061–7.
Enck P, Kuhlbush R, Lubke H, Frieling T, Erckenbrecht JF. Age and sex and anorectal manometry in incontinence. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:1026–30.
Orrom WJ, Bartolo DC, Miller R, Mortensen NJ, Roe AM. Rectopexy is an ineffective treatment for obstructed defecation. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:41–6.
Sorensen M, Lorentzen M, Petersen J, Christiansen J. Anorectal dysfunction in patients with urologic disturbance due to multiple sclerosis. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:136–9.
Williams JG, Wong WD, Jensen L, Rothenberger DA, Goldberg SM. Incontinence and rectal prolapse: a prospective manometric study. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:209–16.
Lin J-K. Anal manometric studies in hemorrhoids and anal fissures. Dis Colon Rectum 1989;32:839–42.
Johnson GP, Pemberton JH, Ness J, Samson NM, Zinsmeister AR. Transducer manometry and the ef fect of body position on anal canal pressures. Dis Colon Rectum 1990;33:469–75.
Wexner SD, Marchetti F, Jagelman DG. The role of sphincteroplasty for incontinence re-evaluated: a prospective physiologic and functional review. Dis Colon Rectum 1991;34:22–30.
Coller JA. Computerized anal sphincter manometry performance and analysis. In: Smith LE, ed. Practical guide to anorectal testing. New York: Igaku-Shoin, 1990:65–11.
Jorge JM, Wexner SD. A practical guide to anal manometry. South Med J 1993;86:924–31.
Farouk R, Duthie GS, Bartolo DC. Functional anorectal disorders and physiologic evaluation. In: Beck DE, Wexner SD, eds. Fundamentals of anorectal surgery. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992:68–88.
Roberts PL. Principles of manometry. Semin Colon Rectal Surg 1992;3:64–7.
Pemberton JH. Anatomy and physiology of the anus and rectum. In: Beck DE, Wexner SD, eds. Fundamentals of anorectal surgery. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1992:1–24.
Cali RL, Blatchford GJ, Perry RE, Pitsch RM, Thorson AG, Christensen MA. Normal variation in anorectal manometry. Dis Colon Rectum 1992;35:1161–4.
Perry RE, Blatchford GJ, Christensen MA, Thorson AG, Atwood SE. Manometric diagnosis of anal sphincter injuries. Am J Surg 1990;159:112–6.
Bannister JJ, Abouzekry L, Read NW. Effect of aging on anorectal function. Gut 1987;28:353–7.
Loening-Baucke V, Anuras S. Effects of age and sex on anorectal manometry. Am J Gastroenterol 1985;80:50–3.
Pedersen IK, Christiansen J. A study of the physiological variation in anal manometry. Br J Surg 1989;76:69–71.
Miller R, Lewis GT, Bartolo DC, Cervero F, Mortensen NJ. Sensory discrimination and dynamic activity in the anorectum: evidence using a new ambulatory technique. Br J Surg 1988;75:1003–7.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Read at the meeting of The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, Orlando, Florida, May 8 to 13, 1994.
Dr. Morgado was a visiting surgeon from the Centro Medico, Caracas, Venezuela. He was funded, in part, by a grant from the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Research Foundation.
About this article
Cite this article
Morgado, P.J., Wexner, S.D. & Jorge, J.M.N. Discrepancies in anal manometric pressure measurement—Important or inconsequential?. Dis Colon Rectum 37, 820–823 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050148
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02050148