Comparison of Anorectal Function as Measured with High-Resolution and High-Definition Anorectal Manometry

Abstract

Introduction: Anorectal manometry (ARM) provides comprehensive assessment of pressure activity in the rectum and anal canal. Absolute pressure values might depend on the catheter used. Objective: Our aim was to compare the results obtained by different anorectal catheters in children with functional anorectal disorders. Methods: Children diagnosed with functional defecation disorders based on the Rome IV criteria were prospectively enrolled. ARM was performed in the supine position successively using 2 different probes in each patient in random order. Resting, squeeze pressures, and bear-down maneuver variables obtained by high-resolution (2-dimensional [2D]) and high-definition (3-dimensional [3D]) catheters were compared. Results: We prospectively included 100 children {mean age 7.5 [standard deviation (SD) ± 4.3] years; 62 boys}. Mean resting pressures were significantly higher when measured with the 3D than with the 2D catheter (71 [SD ± 19.4] vs. 65 [SD ± 20.1] mm Hg, respectively; p = 0.000). Intrarectal pressure measured by 3D and 2D catheters was similar (35 vs. 39 mm Hg, respectively; p = 0.761), but the percent of anal relaxation appeared to be higher for the 3D than for the 2D probe (12 vs. 5%, respectively; p = 0.002). Dyssynergic defecation (DD) was diagnosed in 41/71 patients (57.7%) using the 3D probe and in 51/71 children (71.8%) using the 2D probe (p = 0.044). Cohen’s kappa showed only fair agreement between the catheters (κ = 0.40) in diagnosis of DD. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated significantly different values of pressures obtained with different types of catheters. Normal ranges for conventional manometry cannot be applied to high-resolution systems, and results obtained by different types of manometry cannot be compared without adjustments (NCT02812823).