Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
4
pubmed:dateCreated
1992-6-15
pubmed:abstractText
A prospective study was undertaken to compare two different methods of measuring the anorectal angle (ARA), balloon proctography (BP) and cinedefecography (CD), as well as to evaluate the reproducibility of this measurement using each technique. One hundred four consecutive patients (75 women and 29 men) with constipation (63 patients), fecal incontinence (25 patients), or rectal pain (16 patients) underwent both BP and CD. The ARA was measured by taking lateral radiographs of the pelvis during rest (R), squeeze (S), and push (P). The same interpretation process was performed 2 to 12 months later by the same observer, blinded as to diagnosis and initial measurements. There were highly significant differences in each measurement category, R (P less than 0.0001), S (P less than 0.0001), and P (P less than 0.0004) between BP and CD. However, the correlation between the first and second measurements was excellent (P less than 0.0001). BP was consistently more difficult to interpret because of balloon configuration. Although BP and CD have poor correlation with each other, each examination can be reliably interpreted. CD appears to be a superior examination because of the added ability to delineate rectoceles, intussusceptions, and other structural defects.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Apr
pubmed:issn
0012-3706
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
35
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
332-8
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1992
pubmed:articleTitle
How reliable are currently available methods of measuring the anorectal angle?
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Fort Lauderdale.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study