Optimizing the Utility of Anorectal Manometry for Diagnosis and Therapy: A Roundtable Review and Recommendations.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Anorectal manometry (ARM) is a comprehensive diagnostic tool for evaluating patients with constipation, fecal incontinence, or anorectal pain; however, it is not widely utilized for reasons that remain unclear. The aim of this roundtable discussion was to critically examine the current clinical practices of ARM and biofeedback therapy by physicians and surgeons in both academic and community settings. METHODS: Leaders in medical and surgical gastroenterology and physical therapy with interest in anorectal disorders were surveyed regarding practice patterns and utilization of these technologies. Subsequently, a roundtable was held to discuss survey results, explore current diagnostic and therapeutic challenges with these technologies, review the literature, and generate consensus-based recommendations. RESULTS: ARM identifies key pathophysiological abnormalities such as dyssynergic defecation, anal sphincter weakness, or rectal sensory dysfunction, and is a critical component of biofeedback therapy, an evidence-based treatment for patients with dyssynergic defecation and fecal incontinence. Additionally, ARM has the potential to enhance health-related quality of life and reduce healthcare costs. However, it has significant barriers that include a lack of education and training of healthcare providers regarding the utility and availability of ARM and biofeedback procedures, as well as challenges with condition-specific testing protocols and interpretation. Additional barriers include understanding when to perform, where to refer, and how to use these technologies, and confusion over billing practices. CONCLUSIONS: Overcoming these challenges with appropriate education, training, collaborative research, and evidence-based guidelines for ARM testing and biofeedback therapy could significantly enhance patient care of anorectal disorders.

A Randomized Pilot Study to Compare the Effectiveness of a Low FODMAP Diet vs Psyllium in Patients With Fecal Incontinence and Loose Stools.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of a low fermentable oligosaccharide, disaccharide, monosaccharide, and polyol diet (LFD) vs psyllium on the frequency and severity of fecal incontinence (FI) episodes in patients with loose stools. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized pilot trial of adult patients with FI (Rome III) with at least 1 weekly FI episode associated with loose stool. Eligible patients were randomized to 4 weeks of either a dietitian-led LFD or 6 g/d psyllium treatment. RESULTS: Forty-three subjects were randomized from October 2014 to May 2019. Thirty-seven patients completed the study (19 LFD and 18 psyllium). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of treatment responders (>50% reduction in FI episodes compared with baseline) for treatment weeks 1-4 (LFD 38.9%, psyllium 50%, P = .33). Compared with baseline, mean fecal incontinence severity index score significantly improved with LFD (39.4 vs 32.6, P = .02) but not with psyllium (35.4 vs 32.1, P = .29). Compared with baseline values, the LFD group reported improvements in fecal incontinence quality of life coping/behavior, depression/self-perception, and embarrassment subscales. The psyllium group reported improvement in incontinence quality of life coping/behavior. DISCUSSION: In this pilot study, there was no difference in the proportion of patients who reported a 50% reduction of FI episodes with the LFD or psyllium. Subjects in the psyllium group reported a greater reduction in overall FI episodes, whereas the LFD group reported consistent improvements in FI severity and quality of life. Further work to understand these apparently discrepant results are warranted but the LFD and psyllium seem to provide viable treatment options for patients with FI and loose stools.