A simplified defaecographic procedure for the assessment of faecal incontinence or obstructed defaecation

Pretest and Post-test Probabilities of Diagnoses of Rectal Evacuation Disorders Based on Symptoms, Rectal Exam, and Basic Tests: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is controversy over the utility of symptoms, examination, and tests for diagnosis of rectal evacuation disorders (REDs) or slow-transit constipation (STC). We aimed to ascertain the pooled prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for clinical parameters to determine pretest and post-test probabilities of diagnoses of RED and STC without RED.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and PUBMED databases since 1999 for studies that used binary data to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios to determine the diagnostic utility of history, symptoms, and tests for RED and STC. RED and STC were defined based on confirmation by at least 1 objective anorectal test or colonic transit test. Controls had normal test results based on the specific protocol in each study.

RESULTS

We reviewed 100 articles; 63 studies of RED and 61 studies of STC met the inclusion criteria. Among 3364 patients with chronic constipation, objective tests demonstrated RED alone, 27.2%; normal transit constipation alone, 37.2%; STC alone, 19.0%; and RED with STC, 16.6%. To diagnose RED, discriminant features were urinary symptoms (specificity, 100%; likelihood ratio, above 10; 58 patients), less than 2 findings of dyssynergia in a digital rectal exam (sensitivity, 83.2%; negative likelihood ratio, 0.2; 462 patients) and rectoanal pressure gradient below -40 mm Hg with high anal pressure during straining (specificity, 100%; likelihood ratio, above 10; 101 patients). The features most strongly associated with STC alone were call to stool (specificity, 91.5%; likelihood ratio, 10.5; 75 patients) and absence of abdominal distension, fullness, or bloating (sensitivity, 92.9%; negative likelihood ratio, 0.1; 93 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review, we found specific symptoms, lack of dyssynergia in a digital rectal exam, and findings on anorectal manometry to be highly informative and critical in evaluation of RED and STC.

Diagnostic value of the balloon expulsion test compared with anorectal manometry in Indian patients with dyssynergic defecation

INTRODUCTION

Digital rectal examination (DRE) and balloon expulsion test (BET) are simple tests to diagnose dyssynergic defecation (DD).

AIM

To determine differences in symptoms and manometry findings in patients with abnormal BET and normal BET. The secondary objective was to ascertain the sensitivity and specificity of BET and DRE + BET for the diagnosis of DD in an Indian setting using ARM findings as the gold standard.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with chronic constipation referred for anorectal manometry (ARM) between December 2012 and March 2019. DD was diagnosed using ARM. Findings on BET and, in a subset of cases, on DRE + BET were compared with ARM findings. The data were analyzed for sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Agreement of BET and DRE + BET with ARM was calculated using Cohen's κ coefficient. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

A total of 1006 cases (734 males, 73%) formed the study cohort. Patients with abnormal BET more frequently reported digitation, bleeding per rectum, and straining (p < 0.00001). Moreover, they had a significantly higher median basal pressure compared to those with normal BET (80 vs. 67, p = 0.03). DD was significantly more common in those with abnormal BET. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of BET in detecting DD were 28.29%, 97.15%, 81.13%, and 75.78%, respectively. The percentage of agreement was 76.34%, and there was fair degree of correlation between the two tests. In a smaller subset of cases (166), DRE and BET findings were both available for analysis. We noted that the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of combined DRE + BET were 57.63%, 88.79%, 73.91%, and 79.17%, respectively. The Cohen's κ correlation coefficient was 0.49, suggesting moderate agreement.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with abnormal BET more frequently report digitation, straining, and bleeding per rectum, and have higher resting anal pressure. BET is a good screening test for DD in an Indian setting.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: defecography should be a first-line diagnostic modality in patients with refractory constipation

BACKGROUND

Defecography is considered the reference standard for the assessment of pelvic floor anatomy and function in patients with a refractory evacuation disorder. However, the overlap of radiologically significant findings seen in patients with chronic constipation (CC) and healthy volunteers is poorly defined.

AIM

To systematically review rates of structural and functional abnormalities diagnosed by barium defecography and/or magnetic resonance imaging defecography (MRID) in patients with symptoms of CC and in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

Electronic searches of major databases were performed without date restrictions.

RESULTS

From a total of 1760 records identified, 175 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. 63 studies were included providing data on outcomes of 7519 barium defecographies and 668 MRIDs in patients with CC, and 225 barium defecographies and 50 MRIDs in healthy volunteers. Pathological high-grade (Oxford III and IV) intussuscepta and large (>4 cm) rectoceles were diagnosed in 23.7% (95% CI: 16.8-31.4) and 15.9% (10.4-22.2) of patients, respectively. Enterocele and perineal descent were observed in 16.8% (12.7-21.4) and 44.4% (36.2-52.7) of patients, respectively. Barium defecography detected more intussuscepta than MRID (OR: 1.52 [1.12-2.14]; P = 0.009]). Normative data for both barium defecography and MRID structural and functional parameters were limited, particularly for MRID (only one eligible study).

CONCLUSIONS

Pathological structural abnormalities, as well as functional abnormalities, are common in patients with chronic constipation. Since structural abnormalities cannot be evaluated using nonimaging test modalities (balloon expulsion and anorectal manometry), defecography should be considered the first-line diagnostic test if resources allow.

Digital Rectal Examination and Balloon Expulsion Test in the Study of Defecatory Disorders: Are They Suitable as Screening or Excluding Tests?

Background. Rome III criteria add physiological criteria to symptom-based criteria of chronic constipation (CC) for the diagnosis of defecatory disorders (DD). However, a gold-standard test is still lacking and physiological examination is expensive and time-consuming. Aim. Evaluate the usefulness of two low-cost tests-digital rectal examination (DRE) and balloon expulsion test (BET)-as screening or excluding tests of DD. Methods. We performed a systematic search in PUBMED and MEDLINE. We selected studies where constipated patients were evaluated by DRE or BET. Heterogeneity was assessed and random effect models were used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value (NPV) of the DRE and the BET. Results. Thirteen studies evaluating BET and four studies evaluating DRE (2329 patients) were selected. High heterogeneity (I2 > 80%) among studies was demonstrated. The studies evaluating the BET showed a sensitivity and specificity of 67% and 80%, respectively. Regarding the DRE, a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 84% were calculated. NPV of 72% for the BET and NPV of 64% for the DRE were estimated. The sensitivity and specificity were similar when we restrict the analysis to studies using Rome criteria to define CC. The BET seems to perform better when a cut-off time of 2 minutes is used and when it is compared with a combination of physiological tests. Considering the DRE, strict criteria seem to improve the sensitivity but not the specificity of the test. Conclusion. Neither of the low-cost tests seems suitable for screening or excluding DD.

Diagnostic testing for dyssynergic defecation in chronic constipation: meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dyssynergic defecation (DD) results from inadequate relaxation of the pelvic floor on attempted defecation. The prevalence of DD in patients with chronic constipation (CC) is not certain. Aims of this study are to estimate the prevalence of abnormal findings associated with DD across testing modalities in patients referred for physiological testing for CC.

METHODS

Systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and PUBMED databases were conducted. We included full manuscripts reporting DD prevalence in CC, and specific findings at pelvic floor diagnostic tests. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled DD prevalences (with 95% CI) according to individual tests and specific findings.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 79 studies on 7581 CC patients were included. The median prevalence of any single abnormal finding associated with DD was 37.2%, ranging from 14.9% (95% CI 7.9-26.3) for absent opening of the anorectal angle (ARA) on defecography to 52.9% (95% CI 44.3-61.3) for a dyssynergic pattern on ultrasound. The prevalence of a dyssynergic pattern on manometry was 47.7% (95% CI 39.5-56.1). The prevalence of DD was similar across specialty and geographic area as well as when restricting to studies using Rome criteria to define constipation.

CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES

Dyssynergic defecation is highly prevalent in CC and is commonly detected across testing modalities, type of patient referred, and geographical regions. We believe that the lower prevalence of findings associated with DD by defecography supports use of manometry and balloon expulsion testing as an initial evaluation for CC.