Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Traditional methods of identifying patients with persistent dilation of the rectum, or megarectum, are associated with inherent methodologic limitations. The purpose of this study was to use a barostat to establish criteria for the diagnosis of megarectum and to assess rectal diameter during isobaric (barostat) and volumetric (barium contrast) distention protocols in constipated patients with megarectum on anorectal manometry.
Methods: During fluoroscopic screening, rectal diameter was measured at minimum distending pressure of the rectum, achieved using a barostat. It was also measured during evacuation proctography (volumetric distention). Having established a normal range in 25 healthy volunteers, 30 constipated patients with evidence of megarectum on anorectal manometry (elevated maximum tolerable volume on latex balloon distention) were studied. A further 10 constipated patients without evidence of megarectum were studied (normal rectum).
Results: Megarectum was diagnosed when the rectal diameter was greater than 6.3 cm at minimum distending pressure. Rectal diameter at minimum distending pressure was increased in 20 patients (67 percent) with megarectum on anorectal manometry, but was normal in the remaining 10 patients (33 percent) and all patients with a normal rectum on anorectal manometry. Rectal diameter was increased at evacuation proctography in only 15 patients (50 percent) with evidence of megarectum on anorectal manometry.
Conclusions: The prevalence of megarectum is overestimated and underestimated when rectal diameter is assessed using anorectal manometry and contrast studies, respectively. Controlled (pressure-based) distention combined with fluoroscopic imaging allowed accurate identification of patients with megarectum on the basis of a rectal diameter greater than 6.3 cm at the minimum distention pressure. Measurement of rectal diameter at minimum distention pressure may be useful in those patients with an elevated maximum tolerable volume on anorectal manometry when surgery is being contemplated.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10350-006-0805-x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!