McHugh S M, Diamant N E
Dept of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gut. 1987 Oct;28(10):1234-41. doi: 10.1136/gut.28.10.1234.
Previous station pull through techniques of anal canal pressure measurement have not truly represented the differences among individuals and between sexes in the length and pressure profile of the anal canal. Furthermore, the techniques commonly used in anal canal pressure determination have not been adequately compared or standardised. Therefore, a mechanised rapid pull through technique using an 8-lumen, 4-quadrant, continuously perfused catheter was evaluated and used to define the anal canal pressure profile. For measurement of the resting anal canal pressures, this technique was compared with the more usual station pull through technique in 12 subjects. There were no differences in resting pressure recorded by either technique with infusion rates ranging from 0.5 to 1.2 cc/min/orifice and over a range of catheter withdrawal rates of 0.19 to 0.48 cm/sec. Twenty two subjects (12 men/10 women) had their anal canal pressure profiles assessed using the rapid pull through technique. Anal canal length representing the mean of four axes differed between the sexes (p less than 0.005) and the difference was largely accounted for by a decrease in length of the anterior axis in women. A standardisation technique was used to account for between subject variation and for a more accurate between sex comparison of the pressure profiles. Significant differences in radial symmetry were found between the sexes. In the anterior axis the pressure was higher distally in women, while in the anterior and lateral axes the pressure was higher proximally in men. Anteriorly in women the highest pressures were exerted over a much shorter canal length than in men. We conclude that the usual station pull through technique can give reliable resting pressure measurements in the anal canal. The rapid pull through technique described herein, however, used a flexible catheter system which follows the normal anal canal and rectal contours, allows a more appropriate assessment of the anal sphincter profile, and provides findings that are consistent with the known local anatomy.
以往用于肛管压力测量的定点牵拉技术并未真实反映个体之间以及男女之间在肛管长度和压力分布方面的差异。此外,常用于肛管压力测定的技术尚未得到充分比较或标准化。因此,对一种使用8腔、4象限、持续灌注导管的机械化快速牵拉技术进行了评估,并用于确定肛管压力分布。为了测量静息肛管压力,在12名受试者中将该技术与更常用的定点牵拉技术进行了比较。在灌注速率为0.5至1.2 cc/分钟/孔以及导管回撤速率为0.19至0.48厘米/秒的范围内,两种技术记录的静息压力没有差异。22名受试者(12名男性/10名女性)使用快速牵拉技术评估了他们的肛管压力分布。代表四个轴平均值的肛管长度在性别之间存在差异(p小于0.005),这种差异主要是由于女性前轴长度的减少。使用一种标准化技术来考虑受试者之间的差异,并更准确地比较性别之间的压力分布。发现性别之间在径向对称性方面存在显著差异。在前轴上,女性远端压力较高,而在前轴和侧轴上,男性近端压力较高。在女性中,前部施加最高压力的肛管长度比男性短得多。我们得出结论,常用的定点牵拉技术可以在肛管中给出可靠的静息压力测量值。然而,本文所述的快速牵拉技术使用了一种灵活的导管系统,该系统遵循正常的肛管和直肠轮廓,能够更恰当地评估肛门括约肌轮廓,并提供与已知局部解剖结构一致的结果。