Carrington, Emma V.

Abstract Transition services—programs that support adolescents and young adults (AYAs) as they move from a child‐centered to a more autonomous, adult‐orientated healthcare system—have been associated with improved short‐ and long‐term healthcare outcomes. Unfortunately, there is a paucity of evidence exploring transition services within the neurogastroenterology and motility (NGM) field. The overall aim of this article, endorsed by the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society and European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, is to promote a discussion about the role of transition services for patients with NGM disorders. The AYAs addressed herein are those who have: (a) a ROME positive disorder of gut–brain interaction (DGBI), (b) a primary or secondary motility disorder (including those with motility disorders that have been surgically managed), or (c) an artificial feeding requirement (parenteral or enteral tube feeding) to manage malnutrition secondary to categories (a) or (b). The issues explored in this position paper include the specific physical and psychological healthcare needs of patients with NGM disorders; key healthcare professionals who should form part of a secondary care NGM transition service; the triadic relationship between healthcare professionals, caregivers, and patients; approaches to selecting patients who may benefit most from transition care; methods to assess transition readiness; and strategies with which to facilitate transfer of care between healthcare professionals. Key areas for future research are also addressed, including the construction of NGM‐specific transition readiness questionnaires, tools to assess post‐transfer healthcare outcomes, and educational programs to train healthcare professionals about transition care in NGM.

Abstract Background This manuscript summarizes consensus reached by the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) for the performance, terminology used, and interpretation of anorectal function testing including anorectal manometry (focused on high‐resolution manometry), the rectal sensory test, and the balloon expulsion test. Based on these measurements, a classification system for disorders of anorectal function is proposed. Methods Twenty‐nine working group members (clinicians/academics in the field of gastroenterology, coloproctology, and gastrointestinal physiology) were invited to six face‐to‐face and three remote meetings to derive consensus between 2014 and 2018. Key recommendations The IAPWG protocol for the performance of anorectal function testing recommends a standardized sequence of maneuvers to test rectoanal reflexes, anal tone and contractility, rectoanal coordination, and rectal sensation. Major findings not seen in healthy controls defined by the classification are as follows: rectoanal areflexia, anal hypotension and hypocontractility, rectal hyposensitivity, and hypersensitivity. Minor and inconclusive findings that can be present in health and require additional information prior to diagnosis include anal hypertension and dyssynergia. Conclusions and Inferences This framework introduces the IAPWG protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function based on objective physiological measurement. The use of a common language to describe results of diagnostic tests, standard operating procedures, and a consensus classification system is designed to bring much‐needed standardization to these techniques.

Objective The diagnostic accuracy of anorectal manometry (AM), which is necessary to diagnose functional defecatory disorders (FDD), is unknown. Using blinded analysis and standardised reporting of diagnostic accuracy, we evaluated whether AM could discriminate between asymptomatic controls and patients with functional constipation (FC). Design Derived line plots of anorectal pressure profiles during simulated defecation were independently analysed in random order by three expert observers blinded to health status in 85 women with FC and 85 age-matched asymptomatic healthy volunteers (HV). Using accepted criteria, these pressure profiles were characterised as normal (ie, increased rectal pressure coordinated with anal relaxation) or types I–IV dyssynergia. Interobserver agreement and diagnostic accuracy were determined. Results Blinded consensus-based assessment disclosed a normal pattern in 16/170 (9%) of all participants and only 11/85 (13%) HV. The combined frequency of dyssynergic patterns (I–IV) was very similar in FC (80/85 (94%)) and HV (74/85 (87%)). Type I dyssynergia (‘paradoxical’ contraction) was less prevalent in FC (17/85 (20%) than in HV (31/85 (36.5%), p=0.03). After statistical correction, only type IV dyssynergia was moderately useful for discriminating between FC (39/85 (46%)) and HV (17/85 (20%)) (p=0.001, positive predictive value=70.0%, positive likelihood ratio=2.3). Interobserver agreement was substantial or moderate for identifying a normal pattern, dyssynergia types I and IV, and FDD, and fair for types II and III. Conclusions While the interpretation of AM patterns is reproducible, nearly 90% of HV have a pattern that is currently regarded as ‘abnormal’ by AM. Hence, AM is of limited utility for distinguishing between FC and HV.