Biomedical subjects

Philip G Dinning

Publications and source records attributed to Philip G Dinning.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Anal manometry: a comparison of techniques.

PURPOSE: Methods of anal manometry vary between centers, resulting in potential difficulties in interpretation of results. This study compared several accepted manometric techniques in healthy control subjects and in patients with fecal incontinence. METHODS: Eleven patients with fecal incontinence (M:F = 3:8; mean age = 67 years) and ten healthy control subjects (M:F = 3:7; mean age = 64 years) underwent anal manometry using five different methods: 1) water-perfused side hole; 2) water-perfused end hole; 3) microtransducer; 4) microballoon; 5) portable Peritron. Using a station pull-through technique, anal pressures (resting, squeeze, and cough pressures) were recorded at 1-cm intervals from rectum to anal verge, as well as radial pressures in four quadrants for Methods 1 and 2. RESULTS: Water perfusion side hole recorded slightly higher maximal resting pressures; however, there were no significant differences between any of the methods. In healthy control subjects, distal maximal squeeze pressures were significantly higher (P < 0.05) than proximally as measured by microtransducer. There were slight (nonsignificant) variations in radial pressures with water perfusion and microtransducer. Peritron values for maximum resting pressure and maximum squeeze pressure were lower than those recorded by water perfusion side hole by a factor of 0.8. CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant variation in anal pressure recordings using standard manometry techniques. Variations in radial pressures are slight and not significant in clinical studies. Results obtained with portable nonperfusion systems must be interpreted appropriately.

Aged↗

PubMed2005

Assessment of intraluminal impedance for the detection of pharyngeal bolus flow during swallowing in healthy adults.

Intraluminal impedance, a nonradiological method for assessing bolus flow within the gut, may be suitable for investigating pharyngeal disorders. This study evaluated an impedance technique for the detection of pharyngeal bolus flow during swallowing. Patterns of pharyngoesophageal pressure and impedance were simultaneously recorded with videofluoroscopy in 10 healthy volunteers during swallowing of liquid, semisolid, and solid boluses. The timing of bolus head and tail passage recorded by fluoroscopy was correlated with the timing of impedance drop and recovery at each recording site. Bolus swallowing produced a drop in impedance from baseline followed by a recovery to at least 50% of baseline. The timing of the pharyngeal and esophageal impedance drop correlated with the timing of the arrival of the bolus head. In the pharynx, the timing of impedance recovery was delayed relative to the timing of clearance of the bolus tail. In contrast, in the upper esophageal sphincter (UES) and proximal esophagus, the timing of impedance recovery correlated well with the timing of clearance of the bolus tail. Impedance-based estimates of pharyngoesophageal bolus clearance time correlated with true pharyngoesophageal bolus clearance time. Patterns of intraluminal impedance recorded in the pharynx during bolus swallowing are therefore more complex than those in the esophagus. During swallowing, mucosal contact between the tongue base and posterior pharyngeal wall prolongs the duration of pharyngeal impedance drop, leading to overestimation of bolus tail timing. Therefore, we conclude that intraluminal impedance measurement does not accurately reflect the bolus transit in the pharynx but does accurately reflect bolus transit across the UES and below.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Abnormal predefecatory colonic motor patterns define constipation in obstructed defecation.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The pathophysiology of constipation in the syndrome of obstructed defecation is unknown. Using 24-hour pancolonic manometric recordings of the unprepared colon to record basal pressures and spontaneous defecation episodes, we tested the hypothesis that the frequency, timing, or spatial distribution of propagating colonic pressure waves is abnormal in patients with obstructed defecation. METHODS: In 11 patients with obstructed defecation and 16 healthy controls, pressures were recorded using a nasocolonic catheter that was positioned such that 16 recording sites spanned the unprepared colon at 7.5-cm intervals. RESULTS: The overall frequency of propagating sequences (PS) in the colon did not differ between patients and controls. When compared with controls, patients had a significant increase in the frequency of retrograde and antegrade PS (P < 0.05) in the left colon and a significant reduction in the amplitude of propagating pressure waves throughout the entire colon (P < 0.03). Defecation occurred in 6 of 11 patients and 9 of 16 controls. In the 15 minutes before defecation, controls showed a highly significant increase in frequency (P = 0.001) and amplitude (P = 0.01) of PS. In contrast, patients did not demonstrate this or the typical spatiotemporal organization of PS normally observed before expulsion of stool. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with obstructed defecation lack the normal predefecatory augmentation in frequency and amplitude of propagating pressure waves and lack the normal stereotypic spatiotemporal patterning of colonic pressure waves that would normally culminate in effective expulsion of stool.

Adult↗