Sir Alan Park's Physiology Unit, St Mark's Hospital Academic Institute, Harrow, UK.
Imperial College of London, London, UK.
Colorectal Dis. 2020 Aug;22(8):923-930. doi: 10.1111/codi.14992. Epub 2020 Feb 21.
Anorectal physiology tests provide a functional assessment of the anal canal. The aim of this study was to compare the results generated by standard high-resolution water-perfused manometry (WPM) with the newer THD Anopress manometry system.
This was a prospective observational study. Conventional manometry was carried out using a water-perfused catheter with high-resolution manometry and compared with the Anopress system with air-filled catheters. All patients underwent the two procedures successively in a randomized order. Time to arrive at the resting pressure plateau, resting, squeeze, straining pressure and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain were recorded. A qualitative analysis of the two devices was performed.
Between 2016 and 2017, 60 patients were recruited. The time from insertion of the catheter to arriving at the resting pressure plateau was significantly lower with the Anopress compared with WPM: 12 s [interquartile range (IQR) 10-17 s] versus 100 s (IQR 67-121 s) (P < 0.001). A strong correlation between the manometric values of WPM and the Anopress was observed. Both procedures were well tolerated, although the VAS score for insertion of the WPM catheter was significantly higher. The Anopress was easier to use and more time-efficient than the WPM.
The pressure values obtained with Anopress correlated well with those of conventional manometry. The Anopress has the advantage of being less time-consuming, user-friendly and better tolerated by patients.
肛肠生理学测试可对肛门直肠功能进行评估。本研究旨在比较标准高分辨率水灌注测压(WPM)与新型 THD Anopress 测压系统得出的结果。
这是一项前瞻性观察研究。使用带有高分辨率测压的水灌注导管进行常规测压,并将其与装有充气囊的 Anopress 系统进行比较。所有患者均按随机顺序先后接受这两种程序。记录达到静息压力平台的时间、静息、收缩、用力时的压力和疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)。对两种设备进行定性分析。
2016 年至 2017 年间,共招募了 60 名患者。与 WPM 相比,Anopress 到达静息压力平台的时间明显更短:12 秒(IQR 10-17 秒)比 100 秒(IQR 67-121 秒)(P<0.001)。WPM 和 Anopress 的测压值之间存在很强的相关性。两种方法均耐受良好,尽管 WPM 导管插入的 VAS 评分明显更高。Anopress 比 WPM 更易于使用且效率更高。
Anopress 获得的压力值与常规测压相关性良好。Anopress 的优点是耗时更短、用户友好且患者耐受性更好。