How reliable are currently available methods of measuring the anorectal angle?

Jose M N Jorge, Steven D. Wexner, Floriano Marchetti, Guillermo O. Rosato, Maureen L. Sullivan, David G. Jagelman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

46 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A prospective study was undertaken to compare two different methods of measuring the anorectal angle (ABA), balloon proctography (BP) and cinedefecography (CD), as well as to evaluate the reproducibility of this measurement using each technique. One hundred four consecutive patients (75 women and 29 men) with constipation (63 patients), fecal incontinence (25 patients), or rectal pain (16 patients) underwent both BP and CD. The ARA was measured by taking lateral radiographs of the pelvis during rest (R), squeeze (S), and push (P). The same interpretation process was performed 2 to 12 months later by the same observer, blinded as to diagnosis and initial measurements. There were highly significant differences in each measurement category, R (P< 0.0001), S (P< 0.0001), and P (P< 0.0004 between BP and CD. However, the correlation between the first and second measurements was excellent (P< 0.0001). BP was consistently more difficult to interpret because of balloon configuration. Although BP and CD have poor correlation with each other, each examination can be reliably interpreted. CD appears to be a superior examination because of the added ability to delineate rectoceles, intussusceptions, and other structural defects.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)332-338
Number of pages7
JournalDiseases of the Colon & Rectum
Volume35
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 1992
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Fecal Incontinence
Intussusception
Constipation
Pelvis
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Anorectal angle
  • Balloon sphincterography
  • Constipation
  • Defecography
  • Fecal incontinence
  • Proctography

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Jorge, J. M. N., Wexner, S. D., Marchetti, F., Rosato, G. O., Sullivan, M. L., & Jagelman, D. G. (1992). How reliable are currently available methods of measuring the anorectal angle? Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 35(4), 332-338. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02048110

How reliable are currently available methods of measuring the anorectal angle? / Jorge, Jose M N; Wexner, Steven D.; Marchetti, Floriano; Rosato, Guillermo O.; Sullivan, Maureen L.; Jagelman, David G.

In: Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Vol. 35, No. 4, 01.04.1992, p. 332-338.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jorge, JMN, Wexner, SD, Marchetti, F, Rosato, GO, Sullivan, ML & Jagelman, DG 1992, 'How reliable are currently available methods of measuring the anorectal angle?', Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 332-338. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02048110
Jorge, Jose M N ; Wexner, Steven D. ; Marchetti, Floriano ; Rosato, Guillermo O. ; Sullivan, Maureen L. ; Jagelman, David G. / How reliable are currently available methods of measuring the anorectal angle?. In: Diseases of the Colon & Rectum. 1992 ; Vol. 35, No. 4. pp. 332-338.
@article{001de59541194530a1cf64523c8fad26,
title = "How reliable are currently available methods of measuring the anorectal angle?",
abstract = "A prospective study was undertaken to compare two different methods of measuring the anorectal angle (ABA), balloon proctography (BP) and cinedefecography (CD), as well as to evaluate the reproducibility of this measurement using each technique. One hundred four consecutive patients (75 women and 29 men) with constipation (63 patients), fecal incontinence (25 patients), or rectal pain (16 patients) underwent both BP and CD. The ARA was measured by taking lateral radiographs of the pelvis during rest (R), squeeze (S), and push (P). The same interpretation process was performed 2 to 12 months later by the same observer, blinded as to diagnosis and initial measurements. There were highly significant differences in each measurement category, R (P< 0.0001), S (P< 0.0001), and P (P< 0.0004 between BP and CD. However, the correlation between the first and second measurements was excellent (P< 0.0001). BP was consistently more difficult to interpret because of balloon configuration. Although BP and CD have poor correlation with each other, each examination can be reliably interpreted. CD appears to be a superior examination because of the added ability to delineate rectoceles, intussusceptions, and other structural defects.",
keywords = "Anorectal angle, Balloon sphincterography, Constipation, Defecography, Fecal incontinence, Proctography",
author = "Jorge, {Jose M N} and Wexner, {Steven D.} and Floriano Marchetti and Rosato, {Guillermo O.} and Sullivan, {Maureen L.} and Jagelman, {David G.}",
year = "1992",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/BF02048110",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "332--338",
journal = "Diseases of the Colon and Rectum",
issn = "0012-3706",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How reliable are currently available methods of measuring the anorectal angle?

AU - Jorge, Jose M N

AU - Wexner, Steven D.

AU - Marchetti, Floriano

AU - Rosato, Guillermo O.

AU - Sullivan, Maureen L.

AU - Jagelman, David G.

PY - 1992/4/1

Y1 - 1992/4/1

N2 - A prospective study was undertaken to compare two different methods of measuring the anorectal angle (ABA), balloon proctography (BP) and cinedefecography (CD), as well as to evaluate the reproducibility of this measurement using each technique. One hundred four consecutive patients (75 women and 29 men) with constipation (63 patients), fecal incontinence (25 patients), or rectal pain (16 patients) underwent both BP and CD. The ARA was measured by taking lateral radiographs of the pelvis during rest (R), squeeze (S), and push (P). The same interpretation process was performed 2 to 12 months later by the same observer, blinded as to diagnosis and initial measurements. There were highly significant differences in each measurement category, R (P< 0.0001), S (P< 0.0001), and P (P< 0.0004 between BP and CD. However, the correlation between the first and second measurements was excellent (P< 0.0001). BP was consistently more difficult to interpret because of balloon configuration. Although BP and CD have poor correlation with each other, each examination can be reliably interpreted. CD appears to be a superior examination because of the added ability to delineate rectoceles, intussusceptions, and other structural defects.

AB - A prospective study was undertaken to compare two different methods of measuring the anorectal angle (ABA), balloon proctography (BP) and cinedefecography (CD), as well as to evaluate the reproducibility of this measurement using each technique. One hundred four consecutive patients (75 women and 29 men) with constipation (63 patients), fecal incontinence (25 patients), or rectal pain (16 patients) underwent both BP and CD. The ARA was measured by taking lateral radiographs of the pelvis during rest (R), squeeze (S), and push (P). The same interpretation process was performed 2 to 12 months later by the same observer, blinded as to diagnosis and initial measurements. There were highly significant differences in each measurement category, R (P< 0.0001), S (P< 0.0001), and P (P< 0.0004 between BP and CD. However, the correlation between the first and second measurements was excellent (P< 0.0001). BP was consistently more difficult to interpret because of balloon configuration. Although BP and CD have poor correlation with each other, each examination can be reliably interpreted. CD appears to be a superior examination because of the added ability to delineate rectoceles, intussusceptions, and other structural defects.

KW - Anorectal angle

KW - Balloon sphincterography

KW - Constipation

KW - Defecography

KW - Fecal incontinence

KW - Proctography

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026546714&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026546714&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF02048110

DO - 10.1007/BF02048110

M3 - Article

C2 - 1582354

AN - SCOPUS:0026546714

VL - 35

SP - 332

EP - 338

JO - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

JF - Diseases of the Colon and Rectum

SN - 0012-3706

IS - 4

ER -