ArticleTechniques in coloproctology2024
Feasibility of IAPWG protocol in performing high-definition three-dimensional anorectal manometry: A prospective, multicentric italian study.
Article in Techniques in coloproctology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) suggests a standardized protocol to perform high-resolution anorectal manometry. The applicability and possible limitations of the IAPWG protocol in performing three-dimensional high-definition anorectal manometry (3D-ARM) have still to be extensively evaluated.
methodsThe IAPWG protocol was applied in performing 3D-ARM. Anorectal manometry (ARM) and a balloon expulsion test (BET) were performed according to IAPGW protocol in 290 patients. KEY
resultsA total of 84 males and 206 females (mean age 57.1 ± 15.7 years) were enrolled in six Italian centers. The reasons for which the patients were sent to perform 3D-ARM were: constipation (53.1%), fecal incontinence (26.9%), anal pain (3.1%), postsurgical (3.8%) and presurgical evaluation (4.8%), prolapse (3.4%), anal fissure (2.8%), and other (2.1%). Due to organic and functional conditions (low rectal anterior resections, rectal prolapses, and J-pouch after colectomy), we were unable to perform a complete 3D-ARM on six patients. Overall, a complete 3D-ARM and BET following IAPWG protocol was carried out in 284 patients (97.9%). The following were recorded: rest pressure (81.9 ± 32.0 mmHg) and length of the anal sphincter (37.0 ± 6.2 cm), maximum anal squeeze pressure (201.6 ± 81.3 mmHg), squeeze duration (22.0 ± 8.8 s), maximum rectal (48.7 ± 41.0 mmHg) and minimum anal pressure (73.3 ± 36.5 mmHg) during push, presence/absence of a dyssynergic pattern, cough reflex and rectal sensations (first constant sensation 48.4 ± 29.5 mL, desire to defecate 83.7 ± 52.1 mL, and maximum tolerated volume 149.5 ± 72.6 mL), and presence/absence of rectoanal inhibitory reflex. Mean 3D-ARM registration time was 14 min 7 s ± 3 min 12 s.
conclusionsThis is the first multicentric study that evaluates the applicability of the IAPWG protocol in 3D-ARM performed in different manometric laboratories (both gastroenterological and surgical). The IAPWG protocol was easy to perform and was not time consuming. A diagnosis according to the London Classification was easily obtained in most patients in which 3D-ARM was carried out. No clear limitations to the applicability of the IAPWG protocol were detected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39480607What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.