Prospective evaluation of a new rapid urease test (Pronto Dry) for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.

AIM: Rapid urease tests are commonly used to establish the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection during upper endoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of a new rapid urease test (Pronto Dry) compared with histology as the gold standard. METHODS: Six gastric biopsies (three in the antrum and three in the fundus) were performed in 113 consecutive patients. Eighteen patients were later excluded from analysis because they did not fulfil the inclusion criteria. Four biopsies were examined by two experienced pathologists blinded to the rapid urease tests. Two biopsies (one from antrum and one from the fundus) were pooled for the rapid urease test which was read by the endoscopist 5 and 30 minutes later using the color scale (yellow, pink, orange, dark pink, fuchsia) provided by the manufacturer. RESULTS: According to the histology findings 32 of the 95 patients retained for analysis (33.7%) were positive for Helicobacter pylori. Considering that a positive test was indicated by the dark pink or fuchsia colors, sensitivity and specificity of Pronto Dry were 62.5% and 98.4% at 5 minutes and 84.4% and 98.4% at 30 minutes respectively. Twenty-one of the 28 positive rapid urease tests (75%) were already positive at 5 minutes. CONCLUSION: Considering positive tests are indicated solely by the two darkest colors on the color scale, the performance of Pronto Dry is similar to that of other rapid urease tests. The rapid results provided by Pronto Dry in routine practice would seem to provide obvious advantages.

Anorectal physiology in solitary ulcer syndrome: a case-matched series.

PURPOSE: Solitary ulcer syndrome is a rare condition characterized by inflammation and chronic ulcer of the rectal wall in patients suffering from outlet constipation. Despite similar surgical options (rectopexy, anterior resection), solitary ulcer syndrome may differ from overt rectal prolapse with regard to symptoms and pathogenesis. The present work analyzed differences between these conditions in a case-control physiology study. METHODS: From 1997 to 2002, 931 consecutive subjects were investigated in a single physiology unit for anorectal functional disorders. Standardized questionnaires, anorectal physiology, and evacuation proctography were included in a prospective database. Diagnosis of solitary ulcer syndrome was based on both symptoms and anatomic features in 25 subjects with no overt rectal prolapse (21 females and 4 males; mean age, 37.2 +/- 15.7 years) and no past history of anorectal surgery. They were compared with age-matched and gender-matched subjects: 25 with outlet constipation (also matched on degree of internal procidentia), 25 with overt rectal prolapse without any mucosal change, and 14 with overt rectal prolapse and mucosal changes. RESULTS: Subjects with solitary ulcer syndrome reported symptomatic levels (digitations, pain, incontinence) similar to those of patients with outlet constipation, but they had significantly more constipation and less incontinence than patients with overt rectal prolapse. Compared with each of the three control groups (dyschezia, rectal prolapse without mucosal change, and rectal prolapse with mucosal change), subjects with solitary ulcer syndrome more frequently had an increasing anal pressure at strain (15 vs. 5, 3, and 1, respectively ; P < 0.01) and a paradoxical puborectalis contraction (15 vs. 9, 1, and 1, respectively; P < 0.05). With respect to evacuating proctography, complete rectal emptying was achieved less frequently in this group (5 vs. 12, 23, and 10, respectively; P < 0.05). Compared with patients with overt rectal prolapse, mean resting and squeezing anal pressures were significantly higher in both groups of subjects with solitary ulcer syndrome and with outlet constipation. Prevalence and levels of anatomic disorders (perineal descent, rectocele) did not differ among the four groups except for rectal prolapse grade and prevalence of enterocele (higher in overt rectal prolapse group). Interestingly, and despite matched controls for degree of intussusception, individuals with solitary ulcer syndrome had circular internal procidentia more often compared with those suffering from outlet constipation without mucosal lesions (15 vs. 8, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This case-controlled study quantifies functional anal disorders in patients suffering from solitary ulcer syndrome. Despite no proven etiologic factor, sphincter-obstructed defecation and circular internal procidentia both may play an important part in the pathogenesis and an exclusive surgical approach may not be appropriate in this context.