How accurate is clinical examination in diagnosing and quantifying pelvirectal disorders? A prospective study in a group of 50 patients complaining of defecatory difficulties

Abstract

We prospectively evaluated 50 patients (38 females and 12 males; mean age, 44.7 +/- 15 years) who complained of defecatory difficulties to determine the accuracy of the clinical examination in diagnosing and quantifying pelvirectal abnormalities. Each parameter was then compared with the features of anorectal manometry and evacuation proctography performed by two independent observers. Global agreement between clinical diagnosis and the reference method (radiology for rectoceles, rectal intussusceptions, and abnormal perineal descent; manometry for anismus) was observed in 80 percent of cases. In rectoceles, anismus, and rectal intussusceptions especially, excellent negative predictive values were obtained (96, 96, and 80 percent, respectively). Clinical examination always diagnosed high-grade intussusceptions. Nevertheless, abnormal perineal descent was poorly evaluated in 20 patients. When compared with anal manometry, digital assessment was able to quantify resting and squeeze pressures and length of the anal canal with excellent correlation and good global agreement as well as predicting a short or hypotonic anal canal. Clinical assessment is usually sufficient and accurate in most pelvirectal disorders encountered in patients complaining of defecatory difficulties. Both anorectal manometry and evacuation proctography retain a definite but limited place in investigating pelvirectal disorders.