Diagnostic disagreement between tests of evacuatory function: a prospective study of 100 constipated patients

• Published in: Neurogastroenterology and motility Vol. 28; no. 10; pp. 1589 - 1598
• Main Authors: Palit, S., Thin, N., Knowles, C. H., Lunniss, P. J., Bharucha, A. E., Scott, S. M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-10-2016
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; anorectal manometry; balloon expulsion test; chronic constipation; Constipation - diagnosis; Constipation - physiopathology; Defecation - physiology; Female; Humans; Male; Manometry - methods; Middle Aged; proctography; Prospective Studies; Young Adult; anorectal manometry; balloon expulsion test; chronic constipation; proctography
• ISSN: 1350-1925; 1365-2982
• DOI: 10.1111/nmo.12859

Background
Evacuatory dysfunction (ED) is a common cause of constipation and may be sub‐classified on the basis of specialist tests. Such tests may guide treatment e.g., biofeedback therapy for ‘functional’ defecatory disorders (FDD). However, there is no gold standard, and prior studies have not prospectively and systematically compared all tests that are used to diagnose forms of ED.
Methods
One hundred consecutive patients fulfilling Rome III criteria for functional constipation underwent four tests: expulsion of a rectal balloon distended to 50 mL (BE50) or until patients experienced the desire to defecate (BEDDV), evacuation proctography (EP) and anorectal manometry. Yields and agreements between tests for the diagnosis of ED and FDD were assessed.
Key Results
Positive diagnostic yields for ED were: BEDDV 18%, BE50 31%, EP 38% and anorectal manometry (ARM) 68%. Agreement was substantial between the two balloon tests (k = 0.66), only fair between proctography and BE50 (k = 0.27), poor between manometry and proctography (k = 0.01), and there was no agreement between the balloon tests and manometry (k = −0.07 for both BE50 and BEDDV). For the diagnosis of FDD, there was only fair agreement between ARM and EP (k = 0.23), ARM ± BE50 and EP (k = 0.18), ARM and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.30) and ARM ± BE50 and EP ± BE50 (k = 0.23).
Conclusions & Inferences
There is considerable disagreement between the results of various tests used to diagnose ED and FDD. This highlights the need for a reappraisal of both diagnostic criteria, and what represents the ‘gold standard’ investigation.
100 constipated patients were prospectively investigated using manometry, evacuation proctography and balloon expulsion test, strictly following the ROME III criteria. Our results showed significant discordance between outcome of investigations.