- Anismus, Physiology, Radiology: Is It Time for Some Pragmatism? A Comparative Study of Radiological and Anorectal Physiology Findings in Patients With Anismus
-
Umberto Pisano, Lesley Irvine, Justina Szczachor, Ahsin Jawad, Andrew MacLeod, Michael Lim
-
Ann Coloproctol. 2016;32(5):170-174. Published online October 31, 2016
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2016.32.5.170
-
-
4,297
View
-
70
Download
-
3
Web of Science
-
7
Citations
-
Abstract
PDF
- Purpose
Anismus is a functional disorder featuring obstructive symptoms and paradoxical contractions of the pelvic floor. This study aims to establish diagnosis agreement between physiology and radiology, associate anismus with morphological outlet obstruction, and explore the role of sphincteric pressure and rectal volumes in the radiological diagnosis of anismus. MethodsConsecutive patients were evaluated by using magnetic resonance imaging proctography/fluoroscopic defecography and anorectal physiology. Morphological radiological features were associated with physiology tests. A categorical analysis was performed using the chi-square test, and agreement was assessed via the kappa coefficient. A Mann-Whitney test was used to assess rectal volumes and sphincterial pressure distributions between groups of patients. A P-value of <0.05 was significant. ResultsForty-three patients (42 female patients) underwent anorectal physiology and radiology imaging. The median age was 54 years (interquartile range, 41.5–60 years). Anismus was seen radiologically and physiologically in 18 (41.8%) and 12 patients (27.9%), respectively. The agreement between modalities was 0.298 (P = 0.04). Using physiology as a reference, radiology had positive and negative predictive values of 44% and 84%, respectively. Rectoceles, cystoceles, enteroceles and pathological pelvic floor descent were not physiologically predictive of animus (P > 0.05). The sphincterial straining pressure was 71 mmHg in the anismus group versus 12 mmHg. Radiology was likely to identify anismus when the straining pressure exceeded 50% of the resting pressure (P = 0.08). ConclusionRadiological techniques detect pelvic morphological abnormalities, but lead to overdiagnoses of anismus. No proctographic pathological feature predicts anismus reliably. A stronger pelvic floor paradoxical contraction is associated with a greater likelihood of detection by proctography.
-
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
- Can Puborectalis Muscle and Abdominal Subcutaneous Adipose Tissue Thickness Indicate Dyssynergic Defecation?
Eren Çamur, Dilek Acar New Trends in Medicine Sciences.2024; 5(3): 168. CrossRef - MR Defecography Findings Suggesting Anismus: Reliable or not Reliable?
Diğdem Kuru Öz, Nuray Haliloğlu, Ayşe Erden Journal of Ankara University Faculty of Medicine.2023; 75(4): 515. CrossRef - Anismus Through Surgical Eyes
Lester Gottesman Diseases of the Colon & Rectum.2022; 65(2): 137. CrossRef - Comparison of Anismus and Perineal Descent on Static Images of Magnetic Resonance Defecography: Can We Rule Out Anismus in Patients Who Can not Defecate?
Nuray Haliloğlu, Mustafa Fatih Arslan, Ayşe Erden Turkish Journal of Colorectal Disease.2022; 32(1): 54. CrossRef - Magnetic resonance defecography findings of dyssynergic defecation
Nuray Haliloglu, Ayse Erden Polish Journal of Radiology.2022; 87: 181. CrossRef - MRI DEFECOGRAPHY IN PELVIC FLOOR DESCENT SYNDROME (review)
E. P. Goncharova, I. V. Zarodnyuk Koloproktologia.2020; 19(1): 117. CrossRef - Current Situation on the Diagnosis of Anismus-Discordances Between Imaging and a Physiologic Study
Kyung Ha Lee, Ji Yeon Kim Annals of Coloproctology.2016; 32(5): 159. CrossRef
|