Search

Aim: Anorectal physiology tests provide a functional assessment of the anal canal. The aim of this study was to compare the results generated by standard high‐resolution water‐perfused manometry (WPM) with the newer THD® Anopress manometry system. Method: This was a prospective observational study. Conventional manometry was carried out using a water‐perfused catheter with high‐resolution manometry and compared with the Anopress system with air‐filled catheters. All patients underwent the two procedures successively in a randomized order. Time to arrive at the resting pressure plateau, resting, squeeze, straining pressure and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for pain were recorded. A qualitative analysis of the two devices was performed. Results: Between 2016 and 2017, 60 patients were recruited. The time from insertion of the catheter to arriving at the resting pressure plateau was significantly lower with the Anopress compared with WPM: 12 s [interquartile range (IQR) 10–17 s] versus 100 s (IQR 67–121 s) (P < 0.001). A strong correlation between the manometric values of WPM and the Anopress was observed. Both procedures were well tolerated, although the VAS score for insertion of the WPM catheter was significantly higher. The Anopress was easier to use and more time‐efficient than the WPM. Conclusion: The pressure values obtained with Anopress correlated well with those of conventional manometry. The Anopress has the advantage of being less time‐consuming, user‐friendly and better tolerated by patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Restorative proctocolectomy has gained acceptance in the surgical management of medically refractive ulcerative colitis and cancer prevention in familial adenomatous polyposis. Incontinence following restorative proctocolectomy occurs in up to 25% of patients overnight. The Renew® insert is an inert single‐use device which acts as an anal plug. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the Renew® insert in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy. The device has yet to be assessed in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy. Method: This was a prospective study exploring the acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the Renew® insert in improving incontinence in patients who had undergone restorative proctocolectomy. A total of 15 patients with incontinence were asked to use the Renew® insert for 14 days following their standard care. The Incontinence Questionnaire–Bowels was used pre‐ and posttreatment to assess response and patients were asked to report the perceived acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the device at the end of the trial. Results: The device was acceptable to 8/15 (53%) of patients and was effective in 6/15 (40%). Only 2/15 (13%) of patients raised any safety concerns, and these were minor. The device was associated with a significant reduction in night seepage (P = 0.034). Conclusion: In a small study, the Renew® insert can be both acceptable and effective and is also associated with few safety concerns. It is also associated with significant reductions in night‐time seepage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]