Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana · 2012
[Anorectal manometry and ultrasound in the study of patients with fecal incontinence].
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Lumi Carlos Miguel, Miravalle Omar Rubén, La Rosa Luciana, Gualdrini Ubaldo Alfredo, Arias Jorge Héctor, Lueso Marta, Farina Pablo Antonio, Muñoz Juan Pablo, Vaingurt Mariano, Vázquez Fernando Daniel, Gutiérrez Alejandro
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Fecal incontinence is a complex disease that affects the quality of life of patients suffering from it. Anorectal manometry and endoanal ultrasound 360 grades are included among the studies used. There are no clear agreement about the relevance and usefulness of this studies and their role as apart of diagnostic procedures.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the relationship between the clinical severity score in patients with fecal incontinence and the findings of anorectal manometry and endoanal ultrasound. Another objective of this study is to describe the degree of agreement of both methods of study.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population includes 74 patients who underwent endoanal ultrasonography and anorectal manometry for fecal incontinence. The presence or absence of ultrasound injury, the pressures obtained by anorectal manometry and its relationship with clinical severity of patients were described. An analysis of the degree of agreement between both methods was performed.
RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 53 years old (range 19-84 years). Pressures of anorectal manometry were reduced in 59 patients (79.7%) and normal in 15 (20.3%). The assessment of the degree of agreement or concordance between ultrasound and anorectal manometry yielded a kappa coefficient of 0.25 (acceptable) (P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: There is a level of acceptable agreement between endoanal ultrasound findings and anorectal manometry when patients with fecal incontinence are evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the relationship between the clinical severity score in patients with fecal incontinence and the findings of anorectal manometry and endoanal ultrasound. Another objective of this study is to describe the degree of agreement of both methods of study.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population includes 74 patients who underwent endoanal ultrasonography and anorectal manometry for fecal incontinence. The presence or absence of ultrasound injury, the pressures obtained by anorectal manometry and its relationship with clinical severity of patients were described. An analysis of the degree of agreement between both methods was performed.
RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 53 years old (range 19-84 years). Pressures of anorectal manometry were reduced in 59 patients (79.7%) and normal in 15 (20.3%). The assessment of the degree of agreement or concordance between ultrasound and anorectal manometry yielded a kappa coefficient of 0.25 (acceptable) (P = 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: There is a level of acceptable agreement between endoanal ultrasound findings and anorectal manometry when patients with fecal incontinence are evaluated.