. 2022 Nov 9;29(11):1819–1825. doi: 10.1093/ibd/izac234

Table 2.

Studies utilizing APM to assess for fecal incontinence in patients with IPAA.

Author and Year (Reference)	No. Patients	Pattern of APM Abnormality^a	RAIR	Risk of Bias^b	Quality Assessment^c
Braun et al. (1991)¹³	n = 8 with incontinence	Decrease in maximum resting anal pressure	7/8 (87.5%) with absent RAIR	Some concerns	Fair
	n = 25 with continence	Slight decrease in maximum squeeze pressure	19/25 (76.0%) with absent RAIR
		Reduced positive pouch anal pressure gradient
Leblanc et al. (1994)¹⁴	n = 4 with incontinence	Decrease in the mean resting anal pressure	Absent in all patients	High risk	Poor
Leblanc et al. (1994)¹⁴	n = 9 with continence	Hyposensitive pouch	Absent in all patients	High risk	Poor
Sarmiento et al. (1997)¹⁵	n = 22 with nocturnal incontinence	Decrease in mean anal pressure	Absent in all patients	Some concerns	Fair
Sarmiento et al. (1997)¹⁵	n = 22 with complete incontinence	Decrease in mean anal pressure	Absent in all patients	Some concerns	Fair
The Mount Sinai Experience (2022)⁷	n = 2 with incontinence	Decreased rest and squeeze pressures	1/1 (100.0%) with absent RAIR	N/A	N/A
The Mount Sinai Experience (2022)⁷		Hyposensitive pouch	1/1 (100.0%) with absent RAIR	N/A	N/A

Abbreviations: APM, anopouch manometry; IPAA, ileo-anal pouch anastomosis; RAIR, recto-anal inhibitory reflex.

^aIn patients with incontinence.

^bROBINS-E Risk of Bias.

^cNIH Quality Assessment Tool for Case Series Study.