Anxiety Associated With High-resolution Anorectal Manometry in Pediatric Patients and Parents.

High-resolution anorectal manometry is an increasingly common procedure performed in pediatric patients to rule out Hirschsprung and assess anorectal function and sensation. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate anxiety of patients and their parents associated with high-resolution anorectal manometry. Preprocedural anxiety was assessed by standardized questionnaire in all parents and children older than 8 years and observed behavioral distress was recorded by the attending pediatric gastroenterologist. Thirty-five children (mean age = 7.2 years, ±2.8) and their parents completed the study. Patient anxiety was found to be markedly elevated. Observed behavioral distress was elevated compared to more invasive procedures. Self-reported parental anxiety was comparable to adults undergoing endoscopic procedures themselves. Despite the low risk of this procedure, healthcare providers should be aware of the high levels of anxiety and distress that occur in patients and their parents associated with anorectal manometry.

Valores de referencia de manometría esofágica de alta resolución mediante sistema de perfusión / Normal values for water-perfused esophageal high-resolution manometry

ANTECEDENTES: los valores de referencia de la manometría esofágica de alta resolución mediante sistema de perfusión aún no han sido establecidos en nuestro medio, a pesar de su empleo generalizado en múltiples Unidades de Motilidad y la recomendación de determinar valores de referencia propios de cada Unidad en función de sus equipos. Actualmente se utilizan como referencia los valores de normalidad de la manometría de alta resolución en estado sólido. OBJETIVOS: el objetivo de este estudio es establecer los valores de normalidad para la manometría de alta resolución de perfusión de 22 canales a partir del análisis de la motilidad esofágica de individuos sanos. MÉTODOS: se incluyeron 16 voluntarios sanos, sin patología digestiva ni síntomas esofágicos, a los que se realizó una manometría de alta resolución mediante sistema de perfusión de 22 canales. RESULTADOS: los datos vienen referidos como la media y el rango comprendido entre los percentiles 5 y 95. Los percentiles 5 y 95 de cada uno de los parámetros fueron de 40-195 mmHg para la presión de reposo del esfínter esofágico superior (PRESS), 30-115 mmHg para la presión residual del esfínter esofágico superior (PResEES), 2,4-7,1 cm/s para la velocidad de frente contráctil (VFC), 285-2.820 mmHg.s.cm para la integral contráctil distal (ICD), 6,1-10,9 s para la latencia distal (LD), 7-19 mmHg para la presión intrabolo (PIB), 2-20 mmHg para la presión de relajación integrada a los 4 segundos (PRI4s) y 5-54 mmHg para la presión de reposo del esfínter esofágico inferior (PREEI). Los percentiles 5 y 95 del acortamiento esofágico (aE) fueron 0,3-1,3 cm y del ascenso del esfínter esofágico inferior (aEEI) 0,1-1,2 cm. CONCLUSIÓN: los rangos de normalidad obtenidos mediante sistema de perfusión de 22 canales para los parámetros manométricos más importantes (PRI4s, LD, VFC) son similares a los previamente publicados con equipos de perfusión, existiendo variaciones pequeñas, pero significativas, respecto a los valores establecidos por equipos de estado sólido

BACKGROUND: Normal values for water-perfused esophageal high-resolution manometry have still not been established in our environment, despite its generalized use and the recommendation to determine reference values for each Motility Unit based on their equipment. Normal values established with solid-state highresolution manometry are currently being used as reference values for water-perfused high-resolution manometry. OBJECTIVES: To obtain normal values for water-perfused esophageal high-resolution manometry, based on the esophageal motility analysis of healthy subjects. METHODS: 16 healthy volunteers without history of digestive complaints or esophageal symptoms were included. 22-channel water-perfused high-resolution manometry was performed. RESULTS: Normal values were calculated as 5th-95th percentile ranges for the following parameters; upper esophageal sphincter resting pressure (UESRP) (40-195 mmHg); upper esophageal sphincter residual pressure (UESResP) (30-115 mmHg), contractile front velocity (CFV) (2.4-7.1 cm/s), distal contractile integral (DCI) (285-2820 mmHg.s.cm), distal contraction latency (DL) (6.1-10.9 s), intrabolus pressure (IBP) (7-19 mmHg), integrated relaxation pressure (IRP 4s) (2-20 mmHg), lower esophageal sphincter resting pressure (LESRP) (5-54 mmHg), esophageal shortening (Es) (0.3-1.3 cm) and lower esophageal sphincter lift (LESL) (0,1-1,2 cm). CONCLUSION: Normal values for the most important parameters (such as IRP 4s, DL and CFV), obtained using a 22-channel waterperfused system resemble previously published data from other perfusion devices. However, there exist small but significant variations compared with values established with solid-state highresolution manometry. Thus, when using water-perfused catheters, caution is required when normative values are used that were established with solid-state catheters

Adverse events and behavioral reactions related to ketamine based anesthesia for anorectal manometry in children.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients undergoing anorectal manometry require ketamine anesthesia as other anesthetic agents affect the anorectal sphincter tone. The aim of this prospective observational audit was to evaluate our practice and report the occurrence of adverse events and behavioral reactions related to the use of ketamine, propofol, and midazolam combinations. METHODS: Eighty-two consecutive pediatric patients (mean age 8.06 +/- 3.43 years) undergoing anorectal manometry were audited over a 1-year period. After a routine ketamine anesthetic some children were administered midazolam 0.1 mg.kg(-1), at the discretion of the attending anesthetist. Children requiring anal stretch following manometry studies also received propofol 3-5 mg.kg(-1). Intra- and postoperative adverse events, times to spontaneous awakening and discharge from the PACU were noted. Postoperative behavioral reactions were noted in the PACU and at follow-up interviews on the first postoperative day and after a period of 1 month. RESULTS: Following completion of the audit, all patients fell into one of the four groups depending on the anesthetic agents they received: K (ketamine only, n = 16), KM (ketamine and midazolam, n = 10), KP (ketamine and propofol, n = 27), and KPM (ketamine, propofol, and midazolam, n = 29). There was no difference in the occurrence of behavioral reactions between the four groups at the three stages of follow-up. Overall, five patients reported 'new onset' nightmares that had resolved completely at the 3-month follow-up. The time to spontaneous awakening was shorter for K group (17.8 min +/- 20.2) vs KPM group (61.7 min +/- 24.4; P < 0.001). The times to discharge in minutes was also shorter in the K group (54.5 min, IQR 30-75 vs 90 min IQR 78-120; P < 0.001). Administration of propofol appeared to have an antiemetic effect [odds ratio (OR) 0.1, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.02-0.58, P < 0.009] in the recovery unit. CONCLUSIONS: Our study findings suggest that, besides significantly prolonging time to spontaneous awakening and PACU discharge, neither the use of midazolam, propofol, or combinations is beneficial in preventing the occurrence of behavioral reactions following ketamine anesthesia. Behavioral reactions were common but did not appear to be long-term. Drug combinations with ketamine may have other benefits such as antiemesis.