Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2022
Visible abdominal distension in functional gut disorders: Objective evaluation.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Barba Elizabeth, Burri Emanuel, Quiroga Sergio, Accarino Anna, Azpiroz Fernando
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Visible abdominal distension has been attributed to: (A) distorted perception, (B) intestinal gas accumulation, or (C) abdominophrenic dyssynergia (diaphragmatic push and anterior wall relaxation).
METHODS: A pool of consecutive patients with functional gut disorders and visible abdominal distension included in previous studies (n = 139) was analyzed. Patients (61 functional bloating, 74 constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and 4 with alternating bowel habit) were evaluated twice, under basal conditions and during a self-reported episode of visible abdominal distension; static abdominal CT images were taken in 104 patients, and dynamic EMG recordings of the abdominal walls in 76, with diaphragmatic activity valid for analysis in 35.
KEY RESULTS: (A) Objective evidence of abdominal distension was obtained by tape measure (increase in girth in 138 of 139 patients), by CT imaging (increased abdominal perimeter in 96 of 104 patients) and by abdominal EMG (reduced activity, i.e., relaxation, in 73 of 76 patients). (B) Intestinal gas volume was within ±300 ml from the basal value in 99 patients, and above in 5 patients, who nevertheless exhibited a diaphragmatic descent. (C) Diaphragmatic contraction was detected in 34 of 35 patients by EMG (increased activity) and in 82 of 103 patients by CT (diaphragmatic descent).
CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: In most patients complaining of episodes of visible abdominal distention: (A) the subjective claim is substantiated by objective evidence; (B) an increase in intestinal gas does not justify visible abdominal distention; (C) abdominophrenic dyssynergia is consistently evidenced by dynamic EMG recording, but static CT imaging has less sensitivity.
METHODS: A pool of consecutive patients with functional gut disorders and visible abdominal distension included in previous studies (n = 139) was analyzed. Patients (61 functional bloating, 74 constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and 4 with alternating bowel habit) were evaluated twice, under basal conditions and during a self-reported episode of visible abdominal distension; static abdominal CT images were taken in 104 patients, and dynamic EMG recordings of the abdominal walls in 76, with diaphragmatic activity valid for analysis in 35.
KEY RESULTS: (A) Objective evidence of abdominal distension was obtained by tape measure (increase in girth in 138 of 139 patients), by CT imaging (increased abdominal perimeter in 96 of 104 patients) and by abdominal EMG (reduced activity, i.e., relaxation, in 73 of 76 patients). (B) Intestinal gas volume was within ±300 ml from the basal value in 99 patients, and above in 5 patients, who nevertheless exhibited a diaphragmatic descent. (C) Diaphragmatic contraction was detected in 34 of 35 patients by EMG (increased activity) and in 82 of 103 patients by CT (diaphragmatic descent).
CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: In most patients complaining of episodes of visible abdominal distention: (A) the subjective claim is substantiated by objective evidence; (B) an increase in intestinal gas does not justify visible abdominal distention; (C) abdominophrenic dyssynergia is consistently evidenced by dynamic EMG recording, but static CT imaging has less sensitivity.