IS THE PHYSICIAN EXPERTISE IN DIGITAL RECTAL EXAMINATION OF VALUE IN DETECTING ANAL TONE IN COMPARISON TO ANORECTAL MANOMETRY?

• Autor(a) principal: PINTO,Rodrigo Ambar
• Data de Publicação: 2019
• Outros Autores: CORRÊA NETO,Isaac José Felippe, NAHAS,Sérgio Carlos, FROEHNER JUNIOR,Ilario, SOARES,Diego Fernandes Maia, CECCONELLO,Ivan
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Arquivos de gastroenterologia (Online)
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0004-28032019000100079
• topic: Anal canal; Digital rectal examination; Manometry; Muscle tonus

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Digital rectal examination (DRE) is part of the physical examination, is also essential for the colorectal surgeon evaluation. A good DRE offers precious information related to the patient’s complaints, which will help in decision making. It is simple, quick and minimally invasive. In many centers around the world, the DRE is still the only method to evaluate the anal sphincter prior to patient’s management. On the other hand, anorectal manometry (ARM) is the main method for objective functional evaluation of anal sphincter pressures. The discrepancy of DRE depending on the examiner to determine sphincter tonus in comparison to ARM motivated this study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the DRE performed by proficient and non-experienced examiners to sphincter pressure parameters obtained at ARM, depending on examiners expertise. METHODS: Thirty-six consecutive patients with complaints of fecal incontinence or chronic constipation, from the anorectal physiology clinic of the University of São Paulo School of Medicine, were prospectively included. Each patient underwent ARM and DRE performed by two senior colorectal surgeons and one junior colorectal surgeon prior to the ARM. Patient’s history was blinded for the examiner’s knowledge, also the impressions of each examiner were blinded from the others. For the DRE rest and squeeze pressures were classified by an objective scale (DRE scoring system) that was compared to the parameters of the ARM for the analysis. The results obtained at the ARM were compared to the DRE performed by the seniors and the junior colorectal surgeons. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive analysis was performed for all parameters. For the rest and squeeze pressures the Gamma index was used for the comparison between the DRE and ARM, which varied from 0 to 1. The closer to 1 the better was the agreement. RESULTS: The mean age was 48 years old and 55.5% of patients were female. The agreement of rest anal pressures between the ARM and the DRE performed by the senior proficient examiners was 0.7 (CI 95%; 0.32-1.0), while for the junior non-experienced examiner was 0.52 (CI 95%; 0.09-0.96). The agreement of squeeze pressures was 0.96 (CI 95%; 0.87-1.0) for the seniors and 0.52 (CI 95%; 0.16-0.89) for the junior examiner. CONCLUSION: More experienced colorectal surgeons used to DRE had a more significant agreement with the ARM, thereafter would have more appropriate therapeutic management to patients with sphincter functional problems. ARM, therefore, persists as an important exam to objectively evaluate the sphincter complex, justifying its utility in the clinical practice.