Abstract
Background
This study was to observe the diagnostic efficacy of high resolution total colonic intracavitary manometry (HRCM) vs colonic transit test (CTT) in the assessment of functional constipation (FC) in Chinese patients.
Methods
Seventy-nine cases of patients with severe FC who were admitted and received colon resection between July 2016 and July 2019 at the Tianjin Union Medical Center were retrospectively reviewed. Before operation, all patients received CTT at outpatient service, followed by HRCM at ward. The resected tissues were subject to histological observation, which was used to determine the diagnostic efficacy of HRCM vs CTT.
Results
The accuracy of CTT for the FC diagnosis was 69.6% (55/79), and the false negative ratio was 30.4%. The accuracy of HRCM for the FC diagnosis was 81.0% (64/79), and the false negative ratio was 19.0% (15/79). Twelve patients showed normal characteristics after CTT but abnormal after HRCM. In contrast, only 4 showed normal after HRCM but abnormal after CTT. In addition, among the 79 patients 12 were detected normal by both CTT and HRCM.
Conclusion
HRCM can be more suitable to assess FC compared with CTT, while CTT is still indispensable for HRCM to diagnose FC.
Keywords: Functional constipation, Colonic transit test, Colonic intracavitary manometry, Diagnosis, Efficacy
Background
In China the prevalence of constipation was 8.2% in general population, which was particularly higher in the elderly and pediatric populations (18.1% and 18.8%, respectively) [1]. Slow-transit constipation (STC) is the most common type of constipation. Functional constipation (FC), mainly including STC and caused by various factors except intestinal or systemic organic pathological ones, is characterized by reduced stool frequency, prolonged stool interval, less fecal volume and hard quality, and difficulty in defecation. The etiology of constipation is still unclear, and currently there are no related specific drugs in clinics. For patients without response to drugs, surgical treatment is needed. Surgery is mainly to resect the colons without peristaltic function, but before the operation it is necessary to exclude the cases of small bowel dysfunction and gastric emptying disorder. However, there are still no specific methods for the examination of colonic functions. The present guideline just recommends the colonic transit test (CTT) to assess the general colonic peristalsis functions based on the imaging features, which can neither be used to determine the exact part of colons with poor peristalsis function nor to assess the extent of the peristaltic function attenuation. Therefore, the current guideline has limited value for instructing such clinical surgeries.
During surgery, to decide whether or not to retain the ileocecal parts and ascending colons, it is necessary to assess the functions of cecum and ascending colons, which is difficult to be evaluated through CTT. The colonic manometry can accurately determine the peristaltic pressure in all parts of the colons and the trend of colonic peristalsis to instruct the choice of appropriate clinical surgical means. Colonic manometry has been used in the diagnosis of chronic constipation [2]. For example, Dranove et al. used colonic manometry to evaluate the aspects of colonic functions in children with refractory constipation [3]. Currently, the commonly used facility emergingly involved non-high-resolution (low-resolution) catheters [4], and low-resolution colonic manometry has some disadvantages, e.g., it may bring about gross misinterpretation of the frequency, morphology and polarity of the colonic propagating sequences, key for the movement of colonic content and defecation [5].
Recently, high-resolution colonic manometry (HRCM), with more closely spaced sensors, has been rapidly developing for more effectively evaluating the colonic peristaltic contractions of the entire human colons, such as colon motility, manometry, operation, and colonic and anal motor activity [6–13], in the diagnosis and classification of constipation. For example, Li et al. used HRCM to effectively determine the colonic motility patterns and morphological changes in the colonic walls of patients (151 cases) with constipation to diagnose and classify the types of constipation as well as accurately identify the diseased colonic segments in order to optimize the appropriate treatment [6]. Sintusek et al. applied HRCM to assess the colonic motor activity in children with treatment-unresponsive STC [7].
HRCM can provide more detailed information about the constipation. However, CTT, with limited beneficial information, is still recommended in the guidelines for the FC treatment. It is important to assess if HRCM can be superior to and substitute CTT in the diagnosis of constipation. Until now, however, there are no such reports yet. In this study, we reviewed the clinical information of patients with FC who underwent the CTT and whole HRCM in sequence before colonectomy so as to compare the efficacy of these two methods in diagnosis of FC.
Methods
Patients
Patients with FC who were admitted to the Tianjin Union Medical Center (Tianjin, China) during July 2016 and July 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients met the Roman IV Functional Constipation Criteria and were pathologically confirmed to have FC. Patients, who did not meet the Roman IV criteria, just had hirschsprung, had no pathological results, or had mental illness, were excluded. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Tianjin Union Medical Center, and the patients’ anonymity were strictly maintained. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
HRCM
Referred to Li et al.’s method [6]. Solar GI high HRCM machine (Medical Measurement System, Holland) was applied to record the colorectal motility. Briefly, the catheter was first kept horizontally at the level of patient’ gut to make the pressure zero-balance and was then moved vertically to check the registration of the transducers. Under the guiding of colonoscope, a solid-state catheter (2.0 cm long and 0.45 cm in diameter) with 36 channels was placed in different segments of colons (rectum, and sigmoid and descending colons), 5 cm apart from each other. The minimum pressure was obtained by calculating all the channel pressures minus their offset pressures. HRCM lasted for over 24 h, and the amplitude, intensity and trends in the whole colonic peristaltic contractions were monitored and recorded in the states of rest, after meals, during sleep and wakefulness. Manometric data were analyzed and displayed as pressure topography using the Medical Measurement Systems software. Low amplitude peristaltic contraction (LAPC), which was defined as contraction amplitude < 75 mmHg but > 5 mmHg [6], represented HRCM positive (abnormal) result, including myogenic, partial myogenic, neurogenic, partial neurogenic, and mixed (combination of myogenic with neurogenic) constipation. [6].
CTT
CTT was carried out before the operation according to the routine protocols. Briefly, patients were orally administered labelled drugs and were measured their movement and distribution by X-ray examination. CTT results included pathologic and mixed (mixture of pathologic and functional outlet obstruction) constipation.
Diagnosis of constipation
Constipation was diagnosed according to the Rome criteria IV [6], including: (1) the presence, in the preceding 6 months, of at least 2 of the following: (i) straining at the time of > 1/4 defecations, (ii) a sensation of incomplete evacuation at the time of > 1/4 defecations, (iii) a sensation of anorectal obstruction/blockage at the time of > 1/4 defecations, and (iv) manual maneuvers to facilitate > 1/4 defecations (e.g., digital evacuation, or need for pelvic floor support), (2) no loose stool without the use of laxative, and (3) inadequate evidence for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome. Constipation was further confirmed by histological observation through hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining on the resected colonic tissues according to our previous report [6], which was used to validate the CTT and HRCM examination results.
Results
Seventy-nine cases of subjects with STC, who received CTT and HRCM in sequence and then underwent surgical resection of the colon tissues, were reviewed, including 15 males and 64 females. The median age was 58 (range 26–77) years. The median Wexner score upon admission was 12 (range 2–22). All the resected colon tissue samples were paraffin-embedded and subject to the histological observation by HE staining, indicating vacuolar degeneration of nerve plexuses and muscularis propria and fibrosis in the outer layers (typical HE staining of the resected colon samples was shown in Figs. 3C, 4C and 5C), which confirmed the diagnosis of constipation in all the 79 samples.
Fig. 3.
Both CTT and HRCM normal (negative) but HE staining positive images in a representative FC patient (Case 15). A CTT normal in Case 15. B HRCM normal in Case 15. C HE staining showed constipation in Case 15. Left, the intermuscular nerve was morphological abnormal and the nerve plexus was atrophied. Right, local hyperplasia was found in submucosal Meissener nerve plexus and Helen sheath nerve
Fig. 4.
CTT normal (negative) but HRCM positive images in a representative FC patient (Case 54). A CTT normal in Case 54. B HRCM positive in Case 54. C HE staining showed constipation in Case 54. Left, the intermuscular nerve with abnormal morphology was unevenly distributed, and no obvious ganglion and smooth muscle cell edema were observed. Right, nonspecific esterase staining (NSE) showed no neurons in one ganglion
Fig. 5.
CTT positive but HRCM normal (negative) images in a representative FC patient (Case 33). A CTT positive in Case 33. B HRCM normal in Case 33. C HE staining showed constipation in Case 33. Left, intermuscular Auerbach nerve plexus atrophy was observed, with only a few atrophied nuclei. Right, nonspecific esterase staining (NSE) showed no neurons in the two Auerbach nerve plexuses
The detailed information of the patients was shown in Table 1. Representative CTT images in FC patients were shown in Fig. 1, including pathogenic FC in Case 3 (Fig. 1A), and mixed FC in Case 6 (Fig. 1B). For CTT examination, 24 (#15, 21, 23, 38, 48, 52, 54, 61–73, 76–79) of the 79 cases, which were confirmed to have FC by histological observation, were normal after CTT. The accuracy of CTT for STC diagnosis was 69.6% (55/79), and the false negative ratio was 30.4%. Figure 2 showed representative HRCM images in FC patients, including myogenic FC in Case 3 (Fig. 2A), neurogenic FC in Case 25 (Fig. 2B), and mixed FC in Case 51 (Fig. 2C). In contrast, 15 (#15, 21, 33, 64–66, 69–72, 74–76, 78, 79) of 79 were normal after HRCM. The accuracy of HRCM for STC diagnosis was 81.0% (64/79), and the false negative ratio was 19.0%.
Table 1.
CTT and HRCM observation of constipation patients
| Patient | Sex | Age | Wexner | CTT (type) | HRCM (type) | Surgical treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Female | 60–65 | 13 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 2 | Female | 50–55 | 13 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, and terminal ileostomy |
| 3 | Male | 50–55 | 11 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, terminal ileostomy, and colonoscopic hemostasis of anastomotic bleeding |
| 4 | Female | 50–55 | 12 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 5 | Female | 65–70 | 7 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, and terminal ileostomy |
| 6 | Female | 45–50 | 12 | Mixed1 | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 7 | Male | 75–80 | 8 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, and terminal ileostomy |
| 8 | Female | 55–60 | 14 | Mixed1 | Partial myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 9 | Female | 55–60 | 9 | Pathologic | Mixed2 | Laparoscopic total colectomy, adhesiolysis, appendectomy and ileoproctostomy |
| 10 | Male | 60–65 | 12 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic partial colectomy, enterolysis, appendectomy, peritoneal drainage, and colostomy |
| 11 | Female | 65–70 | 13 | Mixed1 | Mixed2 | Laparoscopic total colectomy, enterolysis, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, terminal ileostomy |
| 12 | Male | 65–70 | 10 | Pathologic | Mixed2 | Laparoscopic total colectomy |
| 13 | Female | 65–70 | 9 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, enterolysis, and permanent terminal ileostomy |
| 14 | Female | 40–45 | 12 | Mixed1 | Myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, enterolysis, peritoneal drainage, and ileoproctostomy |
| 15 | Female | 40–45 | 14 | Normal | Normal | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy |
| 16 | Female | 60–65 | 13 | Mixed1 | Myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, enterolysis, peritoneal drainage, and permanent terminal ileostomy |
| 17 | Female | 50–55 | 17 | Mixed1 | Myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, appendectomy, enterolysis, peritoneal drainage, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 18 | Male | 75–80 | 11 | Mixed1 | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, and terminal ileostomy |
| 19 | Female | 50–55 | 13 | Pathologic | Partial neurogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, ileostomy, and complex adhesiolysis |
| 20 | Male | 60–65 | 13 | Pathologic | Partial myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, and complex adhesiolysis |
| 21 | Female | 65–70 | 10 | Normal | Normal | Laparoscopic total colectomy |
| 22 | Female | 35–40 | 12 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and prophylactic ileostomy |
| 23 | Male | 65–70 | 14 | Normal | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 24 | Male | 55–60 | 10 | Mixed1 | Myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and ileoproctostomy |
| 25 | Female | 25–30 | 8 | Mixed1 | Neurogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and ileoproctostomy |
| 26 | Female | 55–60 | 12 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 27 | Female | 70–75 | 20 | Pathologic | Mild myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, enterolysis, ileoproctostomy, peritoneal drainage, and ileostomy |
| 28 | Female | 65–70 | 17 | Mixed1 | Mixed2 | Laparoscopic total colectomy, enterolysis, preventive ileostomy, and peritoneal drainage |
| 29 | Female | 70–75 | 12 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, ileostomy, complex enterolysis, and repairment of incisional hernia |
| 30 | Female | 60–65 | 17 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 31 | Female | 65–70 | 8 | Pathologic | Partial myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, and peritoneal drainage |
| 32 | Female | 70–75 | 22 | Pathologic | Mild myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 33 | Female | 75–80 | 2 | Mixed1 | Normal | Laparoscopic total mesorectal excision, and preventive ileostomy |
| 34 | Female | 70–75 | 11 | Pathologic | Myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectom, and ileoproctostomy |
| 35 | Male | 60–65 | 8 | Mixed1 | Myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, and ileostomy |
| 36 | Female | 30–35 | 11 | Mixed1 | Neurogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and ileoproctostomy |
| 37 | Female | 50–55 | 15 | Abnormal | Mild myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 38 | Female | 50–55 | 14 | Normal | Abnormal | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 39 | Female | 60–65 | 7 | Pathologic | Moderate mixed | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, ileostomy, complex enterolysis, and catheter drainage |
| 40 | Male | 60–65 | 13 | Abnormal (STC) | Abnormal | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 41 | Female | 30–35 | 7 | Pathologic | Mild mixed2 | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, ileostomy, and complex adhesiolysis |
| 42 | Female | 25–30 | 10 | Abnormal (STC) | Mild myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and prophylactic ileostomy |
| 43 | Female | 30–35 | 21 | Abnormal (STC) | Severe myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and prophylactic ileostomy |
| 44 | Female | 65–70 | 13 | Abnormal (STC) | Neurogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and ileoproctostomy, ileostomy, complex intestinal mucosa lysis |
| 45 | Female | 60–65 | 7 | Abnormal (STC) | Myogenic CST in left side and normal in right side | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and ileoproctostomy, complex enterolysis |
| 46 | Female | 50–55 | 19 | Abnormal (STC) | Mixed2 (myogenic and neurogenic) | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and ileoproctostomy |
| 47 | Female | 70–75 | 12 | Abnormal (STC) | Mixed2 (moderate myogenic CST with neurogenic CST) | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and ileoproctostomy |
| 48 | Female | 45–50 | 12 | Normal | Moderate myogenic | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 49 | Male | 55–60 | 14 | Abnormal (STC) | Mixed2 (moderate myogenic CST with neurogenic CST) | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy,complex adhesiolysis, and peritoneal drainage |
| 50 | Female | 35–40 | 7 | Abnormal (STC) | Mixed2 (severe myogenic CST in left side and neurogenic CST in right side) | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, and preventative fistulization |
| 51 | Female | 45–50 | 14 | Abnormal (STC) | Mixed2 (severe myogenic CST in right side with neurogenic CST in left side) | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum, prophylactic ileostomy, complex adhesiolysis, and peritoneal drainage |
| 52 | Male | 35–40 | 13 | Normal | Mild myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and ileoproctostomy |
| 53 | Female | 55–60 | 12 | Abnormal (STC) | Moderate myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, and complex adhesiolysis |
| 54 | Female | 40–45 | 22 | Normal | Mixed2 (moderate myogenic CST with neurogenic CST) | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, transanorectal mucosa circumferential resection, and double luminal enterostomy |
| 55 | Female | 60–65 | 12 | Abnormal (STC) | Mixed2 (severe myogenic CST with neurogenic CST) | Laparoscopic subtotal colectomy, and lateral side-to-side anastomosis of ascending colon and rectum |
| 56 | Female | 45–50 | 13 | Abnormal (STC) | Mixed2 (moderate myogenic CST and partial neurogenic CST) | Laparoscopic total colectomy, and ileoproctostomy |
| 57 | Female | 60–65 | 12 | Abnormal (STC) | Moderate myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, complex adhesiolysis, and peritoneal drainage |
| 58 | Female | 50–55 | 10 | Abnormal (STC) | Moderate myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, complex adhesiolysis, and peritoneal drainage |
| 59 | Male | 65–70 | 4 | Mixed1 | Severe myogenic | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, and temporary ileostomy, enterolysis |
| 60 | Male | 60–65 | 13 | Abnormal (STC) | Mixed2 (mild myogenic CST in right side and neurogenic CST in left side) | Laparoscopic total colectomy, ileoproctostomy, complex adhesiolysis, and peritoneal drainage |
| 61 | Female | 55–60 | 10 | Normal | Mild myogenic | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 62 | Female | 40–45 | 9 | Normal | Myogenic | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 63 | Female | 25–30 | 10 | Normal | Mild myogenic | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 64 | Female | 70–75 | 7 | Normal | Normal | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 65 | Female | 45–50 | 6 | Normal | Normal | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 66 | Female | 45–50 | 16 | Normal | Normal | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 67 | Female | 45–50 | 11 | Normal | Myogenic | Transvaginal repair of the rectal prolapse |
| 68 | Female | 45–50 | 14 | Normal | Mixed2 | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 69 | Female | 65–70 | 11 | Normal | Normal | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 70 | Female | 35–40 | 9 | Normal | Normal | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 71 | Female | 70–75 | 11 | Normal | Normal | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 72 | Female | 50–55 | 14 | Normal | Normal | Partial rectal mucosa resection |
| 73 | Female | 55–60 | 9 | Normal | Myogenic | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 74 | Female | 50–55 | 6 | Mixed1 | Normal | Posterior pelvic floor reconstruction, and tissue-selecting therapy stapler |
| 75 | Female | 55–60 | 14 | Abnormal (STC) | Normal | Tissue-selecting therapy stapler, and haemorrhoidectomy |
| 76 | Female | 55–60 | 16 | Normal | Normal | Gastric polyp electrocision |
| 77 | Male | 65–70 | 14 | Normal | Mixed (myogenic CST in left side and neurogenic CST in right side) | Laparoscopic terminal ileum single cavity fistula |
| 78 | Female | 60–65 | 8 | Normal | Normal | Procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids, and rectocele repair, and haemorrhoidectomy |
| 79 | Female | 55–60 | 8 | Normal | Normal | Transanorectal mucous circumferential resection |
Mixed1, mixed type of FC by CTT (combination of pathological and defecation disorder)
Mixed2, mixed type (myogenic and neurogenic type) of FC by HRCM
Fig. 1.
Representative CTT images in FC patients (Case 3 and 6). A Pathologic FC in Case 3 by CTT. B Mixed (combination of pathologic and defecation disorder type) FC in Case 6 by CTT
Fig. 2.
Representative HRCM positive (with LAPC waves) images in FC patients (Case 3 and 25). A myogenic FC in Case 3 by HRCM. B Neurogenic FC in Case 25 by HRCM. C Mixed (myogenic and neurogenic) FC in Case 51 by HRCM
Among the 79 cases, 12 (#15/21/64/65/66/69–72/76/78/79, 12/79) with apparent symptoms of constipation were normal by both CTT and HRCM, while were confirmed to have STC (mild positive) by histological observation after surgical treatment due to unsatisfactory efficacy of conservative treatment. As shown in Fig. 3, in a representative case of FC patient (Case 15) both CTT (Fig. 3A) and HRCM were normal (negative, Fig. 3B) but the HE staining examination showed positive (Fig. 3C). For CTT examination, 12 cases (#22/38/48/52/54/61-63/67/68/73/77, 12/79) showed normal after CTT examination but abnormal after HRCM. A representative case (Case 54) was presented, showing CTT normal (negative, Fig. 4A) but HRCM positive (Fig. 4B), which was validated by HE staining examination (Fig. 4C). In contrast, 4 cases (#33/65/74/75, 4/79) showed normal after HRCM but abnormal after CTT. A representative case (Case 33) with normal HRCM (Fig. 5A) but positive CTT (Fig. 5B) results was similarly presented, as evidenced by HE examination (Fig. 5C).
CTT can only determine normal, and pathological and mixed (combination of pathological and defecation disorder) constipation (Table 1). In contrast, HRCM can identify the detailed types of STC, such as myogenic colonic slow transmission (CST, #1–7, 10, 13, 14, 16–18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 34, 35, 62, 67, and 73), partial myogenic CST (#8, 20, 31, and 45, e.g. in Case 45 left side showed myogenic CST but right side normal), mild myogenic CST (#27, 32, 37, 42, 52, 61, and 63), moderate myogenic CST (#48, 53, 57, and 58), severe myogenic CST (#43, and 59), neurogenic CST (#25, 36, and 44), partial neurogenic CST (#19), mixed CST (i.e. combination of myogenic and neurogenic CST, #9, 11, 12, 28, 46, 68, and 77). Mixed CST comprised several subtypes, including mild myogenic CST in right and neurogenic CST in left side (#60), myogenic CST in left and neurogenic CST in right side (#77), moderate myogenic CST and partial neurogenic CST (#56), mild mixed CST (#41), moderate mixed CST (#39), severe myogenic CST with neurogenic CST (#55), and moderate myogenic CST with neurogenic CST (#47, 49, and 54). HRCM even could determine the sites of different kinds of CST, e.g. severe myogenic CST in left side with neurogenic CST in right side (#50), and severe myogenic CST in right side with neurogenic CST in left side (#51).
Discussion
It is vital important for clinicians to determine and classify constipation and to accurately assess the clinical stages and identify the lesions in the colon segments to select the appropriate treatments. The current recommended method by the related guideline is the CTT to assess the general colonic peristalsis function, but it cannot further classify constipation and accurately identify the diseased colonic segments, let alone determination of the colonic peristaltic functions. HRCM has been increasingly developing for more effectively evaluating the colonic peristaltic contractions of the entire human colons, such as colon motility, manometry, operation, and colonic and anal motor activity [8–13], in the diagnosis and classification of constipation. Until now, however, it is still not clear if HRCM is superior to and can substitute CTT in the diagnosis of constipation.
In this study, we reviewed the clinical information of 79 patients with FC who underwent the CTT and whole HRCM in sequence before colonectomy to compare the diagnostic efficacy of HRCM vs CTT. We showed that the diagnostic accuracy of HRCM for STC was higher than that of CTT (81.0% vs 69.6%), and the false negative ratio of HRCM was lower (19.0% vs 30.4%). In addition, 12 cases showed normal by CTT examination but abnormal by HRCM, while only 4 cases showed normal by HRCM but abnormal by CTT. This indicates the advantage of HRCM in the diagnosis of FC in comparison with CTT.
We reported that HRCM could identify the detailed types of STC, such as myogenic, partial myogenic, mild myogenic, moderate myogenic, severe myogenic, neurogenic, partial neurogenic, and mixed STC. Moreover, mixed STC comprised several subtypes, including mild myogenic STC in right and neurogenic STC in left side, myogenic STC in left and neurogenic STC in right side, moderate myogenic STC and partial neurogenic STC, mild mixed STC, moderate mixed STC, severe myogenic STC with neurogenic STC, and moderate myogenic STC with neurogenic STC. We showed HRCM even could determine the sites of the various kinds of STC, e.g. severe myogenic STC in left side and neurogenic STC in right side, and severe myogenic STC in right side and neurogenic STC in left side. Such detailed observation on FC by HRCM has not been previously reported.
Worth of mention, among the 79 cases, 12 (#15, 21, 64-66, 69-72, 76, 78, and 79, 12/79) with apparent symptoms of constipation were normal by both CTT and HRCM, while they were all confirmed STC (mild positive) by histological observation. This indicates that both CTT and HRCM have defaults (false negative) and not sufficient in the diagnosis of FC because colonic peristalsis based on which CTT and HRCM determine constipation may be influenced by various factors (such as nervousness and diets) during the detection period, thus resulting in false negative result. Therefore, CTT and HRCM detection results should be combined with clinical symptoms in the diagnosis of constipation, and combined application of CTT and HRCM and following validation by histological observation are needed.
There were limitations in this study. This was a retrospective study that there would be some bias in selection of cases since only patients who underwent both HRCM and CTT and received surgery were reviewed. In addition, the case number was not big. Next, prospective studies involving more patients with HRCM or CTT examination, or the combination will be carried out to validate this study.
Conclusion
In summary, we concluded that: 1) HRCM is more effective in the diagnosis of FC than CTT, both in the diagnostic accuracy and in obtaining adequate information of FC, 2) CTT is indispensable because it increases the diagnostic value of HRCM, 3) both CTT and HRCM are not sufficient enough in the diagnosis of FC, which calls validation of histological observation. Next, more patients will be recruited to validate this result, and the diagnostic value of HRCM in the identification of the subtypes of FC will be assessed as well.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable.
Abbreviations
- STC
Slow-transit constipation
- FC
Functional constipation
- CTT
Colonic transit test
- HRCM
High-resolution colonic manometry
- LAPC
Low amplitude peristaltic contraction
- HE
Hematoxylin and eosin
- CST
Colonic slow transmission
Author contributions
DW performed histological analysis and drafted the manuscript. ZZ designed the study and drafted the manuscript. ML collected the clinical information. TL collected the imaging data and analyzed the clinical data. CC collected the clinical information. JC performed the HRCM and data analysis. YL designed the study and checked the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
This study was funded by the Tianjin TCM Key Field Scientific Research Project (2022006). The funder had no role in the design of the study, collection, analysis and interpretation of data, or preparation of the manuscript.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Tianjin Union Medical Center, and the patients’ anonymity were strictly maintained. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Consent for publication
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants for the publication of personal/clinical data.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Chu H, Zhong L, Li H, Zhang X, Zhang J, Hou X. Epidemiology characteristics of constipation for general population, pediatric population, and elderly population in China. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2014;2014:532734. doi: 10.1155/2014/532734. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Vork L, van Avesaat MHP, van Hoboken EA, Kruimel JW, Conchillo JM, Keszthelyi D, Masclee AAM. Normal colonic transit time predicts the outcome of colonic manometry in patients with chronic constipation-an exploratory study. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2019;34(10):1819–1822. doi: 10.1007/s00384-019-03376-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Dranove J, Fleishman N, Reddy S, Teich S. Does the oral-anal transit test correlate with colonic manometry findings in children with refractory constipation? Pediatr Gastroenterol Hepatol Nutr. 2020;23(2):137–145. doi: 10.5223/pghn.2020.23.2.137. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Bharucha AE. Editorial: identifying colonic motor dysfunction in chronic constipation with high-resolution manometry: pan-colonic pressurizations. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(3):490–492. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.601. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Dinning PG, Wiklendt L, Gibbins I, Patton V, Bampton P, Lubowski DZ, Cook IJ, Arkwright JW. Low-resolution colonic manometry leads to a gross misinterpretation of the frequency and polarity of propagating sequences: initial results from fiber-optic high-resolution manometry studies. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25(10):e640–e649. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Li Y, Cong J, Fei F, Zhang Z, Yu Y, Xu C, Zhang X, Zhang S. Use of high-resolution colonic manometry to establish etiology and direct treatment in patients with constipation: case series with correlation to histology. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33(11):1864–1872. doi: 10.1111/jgh.14287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Sintusek P, Rybak A, Mutalib M, Thapar N, Borrelli O, Lindley KJ. Preservation of the colo-anal reflex in colonic transection and post-operative Hirschsprung's disease: Potential extrinsic neural pathway. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2019;31(1):e13472. doi: 10.1111/nmo.13472. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Li Y, Yu Y, Li S, Zhang M, Zhang Z, Zhang X, Shi Y, Zhang S. Isobaric tags for relative and absolute quantification-based proteomic analysis that reveals the roles of progesterone receptor, inflammation, and fibrosis for slow-transit constipation. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33(2):385–392. doi: 10.1111/jgh.13873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Chen JH, Parsons SP, Shokrollahi M, Wan A, Vincent AD, Yuan Y, Pervez M, Chen WL, Xue M, Zhang KK, Eshtiaghi A, Armstrong D, Bercik P, Moayyedi P, Greenwald E, Ratcliffe EM, Huizinga JD. Characterization of simultaneous pressure waves as biomarkers for colonic motility assessed by high-resolution colonic manometry. Front Physiol. 2018;9:1248. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2018.01248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Li YW, Yu YJ, Fei F, Zheng MY, Zhang SW. High-resolution colonic manometry and its clinical application in patients with colonic dysmotility: a review. World J Clin Cases. 2019;7(18):2675–2686. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v7.i18.2675. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Corsetti M, Pagliaro G, Demedts I, Deloose E, Gevers A, Scheerens C, Rommel N, Tack J. Pan-colonic pressurizations associated with relaxation of the anal sphincter in health and disease: a new colonic motor pattern identified using high-resolution manometry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2017;112(3):479–489. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Dinning PG, Sia TC, Kumar R, Mohd Rosli R, Kyloh M, Wattchow DA, Wiklendt L, Brookes SJ, Costa M, Spencer NJ. High-resolution colonic motility recordings in vivo compared with ex vivo recordings after colectomy, in patients with slow transit constipation. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;28(12):1824–1835. doi: 10.1111/nmo.12884. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Vather R, O'Grady G, Lin AY, Du P, Wells CI, Rowbotham D, Arkwright J, Cheng LK, Dinning PG, Bissett IP. Hyperactive cyclic motor activity in the distal colon after colonic surgery as defined by high-resolution colonic manometry. Br J Surg. 2018;105(7):907–917. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.