Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 21, 2025

Anogenital Distance and Perineal Measurements of the Pelvic Organ Prolapse POP Quantification System
Published on: September 20, 2018
Utility of Anorectal Testing to Predict Outcomes With Pelvic Floor Physical Therapy in Chronic Constipation:
Eric D Shah1, Elizabeth A Pelletier1, Carol Greeley1
1Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Background & Aims:
We performed a clinical trial that aimed to inform the clinical utility of anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion time (BET) as up-front tests to predict outcomes with community-based pelvic floor physical therapy as the next best step to address chronic constipation after failing an empiric trial of soluble fiber supplementation or osmotic laxatives.
Methods:
We enrolled 60 treatment-naïve patients with Rome IV functional constipation failing 2 weeks of soluble fiber supplementation or osmotic laxatives. All patients underwent ARM/BET (London protocol) followed by community-based pelvic floor physical therapy. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and 12 weeks. The primary end point was clinical response (Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms instrument).
Results:
Fifty-three patients completed pelvic rehabilitation and the post-treatment questionnaire. Contemporary frameworks define dyssynergia on balloon expulsion time and dyssynergic patterns (ARM), but these parameters did not inform clinical outcomes (area under the curve [AUC], <0.6). Squeeze pressure (>192.5 mm Hg on at least 1 of 3 attempts; sensitivity, 47.6%; specificity, 83.9%) and limited squeeze duration (inability to sustain 50% of squeeze pressure for >20 seconds; sensitivity, 71.4%; specificity, 58.1%) were the strongest predictors of clinical outcomes. Combining BET with squeeze duration (BET greater than 6.5 seconds and limited squeeze duration) improved predictive accuracy (AUC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.90). BET poorly predicted outcomes as a single test (AUC, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.69).
Conclusions:
Using ARM to evaluate squeeze profiles, rather than dyssynergia, appears useful to screen patients with chronic constipation for up-front pelvic floor physical therapy based on likelihood of response. BET appears noninformative as a single screening test (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04159350).
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Assessment of the Rectum and Anus
Rectal Inspection
Begin by inspecting the perianal and anal areas for color, texture, rashes,...
Drugs for Treatment of Constipation-Predominant IBS

