Lack of improvement in anorectal manometry parameters after implementation of a pelvic floor/anal sphincter biofeedback in persons with motor-incomplete spinal cord injury.

BACKGROUND: Effect of biofeedback on improving anorectal manometric parameters in incomplete spinal cord injury is unknown. A short-term biofeedback program investigated any effect on anorectal manometric parameters without correlation to bowel symptoms. METHODS: This prospective uncontrolled interventional study comprised three study subject groups, Group 1: sensory/motor-complete American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) A SCI (n = 13); Group 2 (biofeedback group): sensory incomplete AIS B SCI (n = 17) (n = 3), and motor-incomplete AIS C SCI (n = 8), and AIS D SCI (n = 6); and Group 3: able-bodied (AB) controls (n = 12). High-resolution anorectal manometry (HR-ARM) was applied to establish baseline characteristics in all subjects for anorectal pressure, volume, length of pressure zones, and duration of sphincter squeeze pressure. SCI participants with motor-incomplete SCI were enrolled in pelvic floor/anal sphincter bowel biofeedback training (2 × 6-week training periods comprised of two training sessions per week for 30-45 min per session). HR-ARM was also performed after each of the 6-week periods of biofeedback training. RESULTS: Compared to motor-complete or motor-incomplete SCI participants, AB subjects had higher mean intra-rectal pressure, maximal sphincteric pressure, residual anal pressure, recto-anal pressure gradient, and duration of squeeze (p < 0.05 for each of the endpoints). No significant difference was evident at baseline between the motor-complete and motor-incomplete SCI groups. In motor-incomplete SCI subjects, the pelvic floor/anal sphincter biofeedback protocol failed to improve HR-ARM parameters. CONCLUSION: Biofeedback training program did not improve anal manometric parameters in subjects with motor-incomplete or sensory-incomplete SCI. Biofeedback did not change physiology, and its effects on symptoms are unknown. INFERENCES: Utility of biofeedback is limited in patients with incomplete spinal cord injury in terms of improving HR-ARM parameters.

Meta-analysis comparing CT colonography, air contrast barium enema, and colonoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Published studies have reported a wide range of sensitivities and specificities for computed tomographic (CT) colonography for polyp detection, generating controversy regarding its diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: A meta-analysis of published studies comparing the accuracies of CT colonography and colonoscopy for polyp detection was performed. The pooled per-patient sensitivities and specificities were calculated at various thresholds for polyp size. Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curves were also constructed. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included in the meta-analysis of CT colonography. The pooled per-patient sensitivity of CT colonography was higher for polyps greater than 10 mm (0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.88) compared with polyps 6 to 10 mm (0.63, 95% CI, 0.52-0.75) and polyps 0 to 5 mm (0.56, 95% CI, 0.42-0.70). Similarly, the exact area under the sROC curve (area +/- standard error) was higher using a threshold greater than 10 mm (0.898 +/- 0.063) compared with thresholds of greater than 5 mm and any size (0.884 +/- 0.033 and 0.822 +/- 0.059, respectively). There were no significant differences in the diagnostic characteristics of 2-dimensional versus 3-dimensional CT colonography. At a threshold greater than 5 mm, the exact area under the sROC curve was significantly higher for endoscopic colonoscopy compared with CT colonography (0.998 +/- 0.006 vs 0.884 +/- 0.033, P < .005). CONCLUSIONS: CT colonography has a reasonable sensitivity and specificity for detecting large polyps but was less accurate than endoscopic colonoscopy for smaller polyps. Thus, CT colonography may not be a reasonable alternative in situations in which a small polyp may be clinically relevant.

Chiropractic sympathectomy: carotid artery dissection with oculosympathetic palsy after chiropractic manipulation of the neck.

The clinical association between carotid artery dissection and oculosympathetic palsy is well-known. However, the occurrence of this combination with chiropractic manipulation of the cervical neck is rare. We describe the case of a 54-year-old Caucasian American male who underwent cervical manipulation for neck pain. The following day he noticed drooping of his left eyelid, with an unequal pupil size. Imaging later confirmed carotid artery dissection. Only three previous cases (one from the United States ), of an association between carotid artery dissection and chiropractic sympathectomy (oculosympathetic palsy after chiropractic manipulation of the neck) have been reported. Pictures of the oculosympathetic palsy, computed tomography of the head and magnetic resonance imaging of the dissection are presented.