2005Diseases of the Colon & RectumRequires access

Volume Measurements of the Anal Sphincter Complex in Healthy Controls and Fecal-Incontinent Patients With a Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Endoanal Ultrasonography Images

Rachel West, R. J. F. Felt‐Bersma, Bettina E. Hansen, Rudolf W. Schouten, Ernst J. Kuipers

Open publisher page 66 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine sphincter volume, length, and external anal sphincter thickness in healthy controls and fecal incontinent patients by use of a three-dimensional reconstruction of endoanal ultrasonography images. METHODS: Forty-four controls (15 males, 15 females, and 14 parous females) and 28 incontinent parous females (with and without a sphincter defect) were studied. Internal anal sphincter, external anal sphincter and puborectalis volume, sphincter length, and external anal sphincter thickness were measured. Intraobserver and interobserver variability were assessed. Anal pressure profile was also determined. RESULTS: Internal anal sphincter and external anal sphincter volumes were larger in males than in females (P = 0.001 and P = 0.04), and external anal sphincter volume was smaller in parous females but this was not significant (P = 0.084). Anterior sphincter length was longer in males (P = 0.004) and shorter in parous females (P = 0.06). Males had a larger anterior external anal sphincter thickness (P = 0.018); parity made no difference. Sphincter volumes were not smaller in incontinent females. Incontinent females with a sphincter defect had a shorter anterior sphincter length than that of continent (P = 0.001) and incontinent females without a sphincter defect (P < 0.001). Anterior external anal sphincter thickness was smaller in incontinent females with a sphincter defect (P = 0.006), and posterior and right external anal sphincter thickness was smaller in incontinent females without a sphincter defect (P = 0.02 and P = 0.03). Intraobserver variability was seen for internal anal sphincter volume and sphincter length, but there was no interobserver variability. Correlation between anal pressures and endoanal ultrasonography measurements was poor. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in anal sphincter volumes are seen for gender but not for parity. Fecal incontinence is not associated with loss of sphincter volume. However, anterior sphincter length and external anal sphincter thickness are smaller.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine sphincter volume, length, and external anal sphincter thickness in healthy controls and fecal incontinent patients by use of a three-dimensional reconstruction of endoanal ultrasonography images. METHODS: Forty-four controls (15 males, 15 females, and 14 parous females) and 28 incontinent parous females (with and without a sphincter defect) were studied. Internal anal sphincter, external anal sphincter and puborectalis volume, sphincter length, and external anal sphincter thickness were measured. Intraobserver and interobserver variability were assessed. Anal pressure profile was also determined. RESULTS: Internal anal sphincter and external anal sphincter volumes were larger in males than in females (P = 0.001 and P = 0.04), and external anal sphincter volume was smaller in parous females but this was not significant (P = 0.084). Anterior sphincter length was longer in males (P = 0.004) and shorter in parous females (P = 0.06). Males had a larger anterior external anal sphincter thickness (P = 0.018); parity made no difference. Sphincter volumes were not smaller in incontinent females. Incontinent females with a sphincter defect had a shorter anterior sphincter length than that of continent (P = 0.001) and incontinent females without a sphincter defect (P < 0.001). Anterior external anal sphincter thickness was smaller in incontinent females with a sphincter defect (P = 0.006), and posterior and right external anal sphincter thickness was smaller in incontinent females without a sphincter defect (P = 0.02 and P = 0.03). Intraobserver variability was seen for internal anal sphincter volume and sphincter length, but there was no interobserver variability. Correlation between anal pressures and endoanal ultrasonography measurements was poor. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in anal sphincter volumes are seen for gender but not for parity. Fecal incontinence is not associated with loss of sphincter volume. However, anterior sphincter length and external anal sphincter thickness are smaller.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 66 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine sphincter volume, length, and external anal sphincter thickness in healthy controls and fecal incontinent patients by use of a three-dimensional reconstruction of endoanal ultrasonography images. METHODS: Forty-four controls (15 males, 15 females, and 14 parous females) and 28 incontinent parous females (with and without a sphincter defect) were studied. Internal anal sphincter, external anal sphincter and puborectalis volume, sphincter length, and external anal sphincter thickness were measured. Intraobserver and interobserver variability were assessed. Anal pressure profile was also determined. RESULTS: Internal anal sphincter and external anal sphincter volumes were larger in males than in females (P = 0.001 and P = 0.04), and external anal sphincter volume was smaller in parous females but this was not significant (P = 0.084). Anterior sphincter length was longer in males (P = 0.004) and shorter in parous females (P = 0.06). Males had a larger anterior external anal sphincter thickness (P = 0.018); parity made no difference. Sphincter volumes were not smaller in incontinent females. Incontinent females with a sphincter defect had a shorter anterior sphincter length than that of continent (P = 0.001) and incontinent females without a sphincter defect (P < 0.001). Anterior external anal sphincter thickness was smaller in incontinent females with a sphincter defect (P = 0.006), and posterior and right external anal sphincter thickness was smaller in incontinent females without a sphincter defect (P = 0.02 and P = 0.03). Intraobserver variability was seen for internal anal sphincter volume and sphincter length, but there was no interobserver variability. Correlation between anal pressures and endoanal ultrasonography measurements was poor. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in anal sphincter volumes are seen for gender but not for parity. Fecal incontinence is not associated with loss of sphincter volume. However, anterior sphincter length and external anal sphincter thickness are smaller.

Key concepts: Medicine, Fecal incontinence, Sphincter, Ultrasonography, Colorectal surgery, Anal sphincter, External anal sphincter, Urology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Volume Measurements of the Anal Sphincter Complex in Healthy Controls and Fecal-Incontinent Patients With a Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Endoanal Ultrasonography Images — Research Paper | ScholarLens