Suppr超能文献

用于诊断排便协同失调的肛门直肠测压法的诊断准确性研究。

Diagnostic accuracy study of anorectal manometry for diagnosis of dyssynergic defecation.

作者信息

Grossi Ugo, Carrington Emma V, Bharucha Adil E, Horrocks Emma J, Scott S Mark, Knowles Charles H

机构信息

National Centre for Bowel Research and Surgical Innovation and GI Physiology Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

出版信息

Gut. 2016 Mar;65(3):447-55. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-308835. Epub 2015 Mar 12.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The diagnostic accuracy of anorectal manometry (AM), which is necessary to diagnose functional defecatory disorders (FDD), is unknown. Using blinded analysis and standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy, we evaluated whether AM could discriminate between asymptomatic controls and patients with functional constipation (FC).

DESIGN

Derived line plots of anorectal pressure profiles during simulated defecation were independently analysed in random order by three expert observers blinded to health status in 85 women with FC and 85 age-matched asymptomatic healthy volunteers (HV). Using accepted criteria, these pressure profiles were characterised as normal (ie, increased rectal pressure coordinated with anal relaxation) or types I-IV dyssynergia. Interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy were determined.

RESULTS

Blinded consensus-based assessment disclosed a normal pattern in 16/170 (9%) of all participants and only 11/85 (13%) HV. The combined frequency of dyssynergic patterns (I-IV) was very similar in FC (80/85 (94%)) and HV (74/85 (87%)). Type I dyssynergia ('paradoxical' contraction) was less prevalent in FC (17/85 (20%) than in HV (31/85 (36.5%), p=0.03). After statistical correction, only type IV dyssynergia was moderately useful for discriminating between FC (39/85 (46%)) and HV (17/85 (20%)) (p=0.001, positive predictive value=70.0%, positive likelihood ratio=2.3). Interobserver agreement was substantial or moderate for identifying a normal pattern, dyssynergia types I and IV, and FDD, and fair for types II and III.

CONCLUSIONS

While the interpretation of AM patterns is reproducible, nearly 90% of HV have a pattern that is currently regarded as 'abnormal' by AM. Hence, AM is of limited utility for distinguishing between FC and HV.

摘要

目的

肛门直肠测压(AM)对于诊断功能性排便障碍(FDD)是必要的,但其诊断准确性尚不清楚。我们采用盲法分析和标准化的诊断准确性报告,评估AM能否区分无症状对照者和功能性便秘(FC)患者。

设计

对85例FC女性患者和85例年龄匹配的无症状健康志愿者(HV)模拟排便时的肛门直肠压力曲线进行衍生线图分析,由3名对健康状况不知情的专家观察者按随机顺序独立分析。根据公认标准,将这些压力曲线分为正常(即直肠压力升高与肛门松弛协调)或I-IV型排便协同失调。确定观察者间的一致性和诊断准确性。

结果

基于盲法共识的评估显示,所有参与者中有16/170(9%)呈现正常模式,HV中仅11/85(13%)呈现正常模式。FC患者(80/85,94%)和HV(74/85,87%)中排便协同失调模式(I-IV型)的合并频率非常相似。I型排便协同失调(“矛盾”收缩)在FC患者中(17/85,20%)比在HV中(31/85,36.5%)更为少见(p=0.03)。经过统计学校正后,只有IV型排便协同失调对区分FC患者(39/85,46%)和HV(17/85,20%)有一定作用(p=0.001,阳性预测值=70.0%,阳性似然比=2.3)。观察者间在识别正常模式、I型和IV型排便协同失调以及FDD方面的一致性为高度或中度,在识别II型和III型方面的一致性为尚可。

结论

虽然AM模式的解读具有可重复性,但近90%的HV呈现出目前AM认为“异常”的模式。因此,AM在区分FC和HV方面的效用有限。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

2
Electronic Measurement of the Anorectal Angle Versus Radiographic Assessment.肛门直肠角的电子测量与影像学评估对比
Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 Jun 10;4(9):100718. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100718. eCollection 2025.
8
9
Fecobionics in proctology: review and perspectives.直肠病学中的粪便仿生学:综述与展望
Surg Open Dig Adv. 2023 Dec;12. doi: 10.1016/j.soda.2023.100117. Epub 2023 Nov 28.

本文引用的文献

2
ACG clinical guideline: management of benign anorectal disorders.美国胃肠病学会临床指南:良性肛肠疾病的管理
Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1141-57; (Quiz) 1058. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.190. Epub 2014 Jul 15.
8
An update on anorectal disorders for gastroenterologists.胃肠病学家应了解的肛肠疾病最新进展
Gastroenterology. 2014 Jan;146(1):37-45.e2. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.10.062. Epub 2013 Nov 6.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验