Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2019
High-resolution anal manometry: Repeatability, validation, and comparison with conventional manometry.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gosling Jonathan, Plumb Andrew, Taylor Stuart A, Cohen Richard, Emmanuel Anton V
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of anal sphincter function is potentially of value in defining treatment of common pelvic floor disorders. The aim of this study was to establish repeatability and validate high-resolution anorectal manometry (HRAM) by comparison to conventional manometry (CM). Arising from this work would be definitive normal range data.
METHODS: Eighty healthy volunteers (40 female) underwent a test-retest repeatability study. A 16-channel water-perfused HRAM catheter was compared to an 8-channel conventional catheter using a station pull-through technique.
KEY RESULTS: High-resolution anorectal manometry had similar precision to conventional manometry when measuring resting pressure (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.73 vs 0.68, HRAM vs CM) and squeeze increment (ICC 0.90 vs 0.94, HRAM vs CM). HRAM measured resting pressures 10% lower than CM and squeeze pressure 27% higher than CM.
CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: High-resolution anorectal manometry is a valid technique with comparable precision to CM. HRAM measurements differ considerably to CM, and a new set of normal values must be used.
METHODS: Eighty healthy volunteers (40 female) underwent a test-retest repeatability study. A 16-channel water-perfused HRAM catheter was compared to an 8-channel conventional catheter using a station pull-through technique.
KEY RESULTS: High-resolution anorectal manometry had similar precision to conventional manometry when measuring resting pressure (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.73 vs 0.68, HRAM vs CM) and squeeze increment (ICC 0.90 vs 0.94, HRAM vs CM). HRAM measured resting pressures 10% lower than CM and squeeze pressure 27% higher than CM.
CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: High-resolution anorectal manometry is a valid technique with comparable precision to CM. HRAM measurements differ considerably to CM, and a new set of normal values must be used.