功能腔成像探头对大便失禁患者肛门括约肌功能的测量比较

Alexander O'Connor, Donghua Liao, Asbjørn Mohr Drewes, Abhiram Sharma, Dipesh H. Vasant, John McLaughlin, Edward Kiff, Karen Telford
{"title":"功能腔成像探头对大便失禁患者肛门括约肌功能的测量比较","authors":"Alexander O'Connor, Donghua Liao, Asbjørn Mohr Drewes, Abhiram Sharma, Dipesh H. Vasant, John McLaughlin, Edward Kiff, Karen Telford","doi":"10.1111/nmo.14791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundThe functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) is a test of anal sphincter distensibility under evaluation by specialist centers. Two measurement protocols termed “stepwise” and “ramp” are used, risking a lack of standardization. This study aims to compare the performance of these protocols to establish if there are differences between them.MethodsPatients with fecal incontinence were recruited and underwent measurement with both protocols at a tertiary pelvic floor referral unit. Differences in minimum diameter, FLIP bag pressure, and distensibility index (DI) at rest and during squeeze were calculated at various FLIP bag volumes.Key ResultsTwenty patients (19 female, mean age 61 [range: 38–78]) were included. The resting minimum diameter at 30 and 40 mL bag volumes were less in the stepwise protocol (mean bias: −0.55 mm and −1.18 mm, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05) along with the DI at the same bag volumes (mean bias: −0.37 mm<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>/mmHg and −0.55 mm<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>/mmHg, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05). There was also a trend towards greater bag pressures at 30 mL (mean bias: +2.08 mmHg, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.114) and 40 mL (mean bias: +2.81 mmHg, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.129) volumes in the stepwise protocol. There were no differences between protocols in measurements of minimum diameter, maximum bag pressure, or DI during voluntary squeeze (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &gt; 0.05).Conclusion and InferencesThere are differences between the two commonly described FLIP measurement protocols at rest, although there are no differences in the assessment of squeeze function. Consensus agreement is required to agree the most appropriate FLIP measurement protocol in assessing anal sphincter function.","PeriodicalId":19104,"journal":{"name":"Neurogastroenterology & Motility","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of function lumen imaging probe measurements of anal sphincter function in fecal incontinence\",\"authors\":\"Alexander O'Connor, Donghua Liao, Asbjørn Mohr Drewes, Abhiram Sharma, Dipesh H. Vasant, John McLaughlin, Edward Kiff, Karen Telford\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nmo.14791\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BackgroundThe functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) is a test of anal sphincter distensibility under evaluation by specialist centers. Two measurement protocols termed “stepwise” and “ramp” are used, risking a lack of standardization. This study aims to compare the performance of these protocols to establish if there are differences between them.MethodsPatients with fecal incontinence were recruited and underwent measurement with both protocols at a tertiary pelvic floor referral unit. Differences in minimum diameter, FLIP bag pressure, and distensibility index (DI) at rest and during squeeze were calculated at various FLIP bag volumes.Key ResultsTwenty patients (19 female, mean age 61 [range: 38–78]) were included. The resting minimum diameter at 30 and 40 mL bag volumes were less in the stepwise protocol (mean bias: −0.55 mm and −1.18 mm, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05) along with the DI at the same bag volumes (mean bias: −0.37 mm<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>/mmHg and −0.55 mm<jats:sup>2</jats:sup>/mmHg, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &lt; 0.05). There was also a trend towards greater bag pressures at 30 mL (mean bias: +2.08 mmHg, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.114) and 40 mL (mean bias: +2.81 mmHg, <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = 0.129) volumes in the stepwise protocol. There were no differences between protocols in measurements of minimum diameter, maximum bag pressure, or DI during voluntary squeeze (<jats:italic>p</jats:italic> &gt; 0.05).Conclusion and InferencesThere are differences between the two commonly described FLIP measurement protocols at rest, although there are no differences in the assessment of squeeze function. Consensus agreement is required to agree the most appropriate FLIP measurement protocol in assessing anal sphincter function.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurogastroenterology & Motility\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurogastroenterology & Motility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14791\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurogastroenterology & Motility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景功能性管腔成像探针(FLIP)是由专业中心评估的肛门括约肌扩张性测试。目前使用两种测量方案,分别称为 "逐步式 "和 "斜坡式",存在缺乏标准化的风险。本研究旨在比较这两种方案的性能,以确定它们之间是否存在差异。方法在一家三级盆底转诊单位招募了大便失禁患者,并用这两种方案进行了测量。主要结果纳入了 20 名患者(19 名女性,平均年龄 61 岁 [范围:38-78])。在逐步方案中,30 毫升和 40 毫升袋容量下的静息最小直径较小(平均偏差:-0.55 毫米和-1.18 毫米,p < 0.05),相同袋容量下的 DI 也较小(平均偏差:-0.37 mm2/mmHg 和 -0.55 mm2/mmHg,p < 0.05)。在分步方案中,30 毫升(平均偏差:+2.08 毫米汞柱,p = 0.114)和 40 毫升(平均偏差:+2.81 毫米汞柱,p = 0.129)容量的袋压也有增大的趋势。在测量最小直径、最大袋压或自主挤压时的 DI 方面,不同方案之间没有差异(p > 0.05)。在评估肛门括约肌功能时,需要就最合适的 FLIP 测量方案达成一致意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A comparison of function lumen imaging probe measurements of anal sphincter function in fecal incontinence

A comparison of function lumen imaging probe measurements of anal sphincter function in fecal incontinence
BackgroundThe functional lumen imaging probe (FLIP) is a test of anal sphincter distensibility under evaluation by specialist centers. Two measurement protocols termed “stepwise” and “ramp” are used, risking a lack of standardization. This study aims to compare the performance of these protocols to establish if there are differences between them.MethodsPatients with fecal incontinence were recruited and underwent measurement with both protocols at a tertiary pelvic floor referral unit. Differences in minimum diameter, FLIP bag pressure, and distensibility index (DI) at rest and during squeeze were calculated at various FLIP bag volumes.Key ResultsTwenty patients (19 female, mean age 61 [range: 38–78]) were included. The resting minimum diameter at 30 and 40 mL bag volumes were less in the stepwise protocol (mean bias: −0.55 mm and −1.18 mm, p < 0.05) along with the DI at the same bag volumes (mean bias: −0.37 mm2/mmHg and −0.55 mm2/mmHg, p < 0.05). There was also a trend towards greater bag pressures at 30 mL (mean bias: +2.08 mmHg, p = 0.114) and 40 mL (mean bias: +2.81 mmHg, p = 0.129) volumes in the stepwise protocol. There were no differences between protocols in measurements of minimum diameter, maximum bag pressure, or DI during voluntary squeeze (p > 0.05).Conclusion and InferencesThere are differences between the two commonly described FLIP measurement protocols at rest, although there are no differences in the assessment of squeeze function. Consensus agreement is required to agree the most appropriate FLIP measurement protocol in assessing anal sphincter function.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信