title: Referral for anorectal function evaluation: therapeutic implications and reassurance.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To determine the impact of anorectal function evaluation (AFE) on patients and referring specialists.
  
  
  METHODS
  In one year, 135 patients were referred for AFE, which consisted of proctoscopy, anal manometry, rectal compliance, anal sensitivity measurement and anal endosonography. Questionnaires were sent to the patients and referring specialists.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In 70% of the 135 patients there was total agreement about the referring and final diagnosis. The response rate of the patients was 78% (n = 100) and that of the specialists was 91% (n = 117). The experience with regard to pain and embarrassment during AFE was good. Of the women, 13% preferred a female investigator. Fifty-nine patients answered that they had received one or more treatments after referral: surgery (n = 32), medication (n = 16), diet (n = 5), physiotherapy (n = 1) or a combination of the above (n = 5). Of the 41 patients who did not receive another treatment, 29 were reassured and 12 did not experience any benefit from the visit, thus bringing the total benefit of the referral to 88%. The anorectal complaints before AFE and at follow-up improved significantly in the treated group (P < 0.0001). The advice given was followed by the referring specialist in 98 cases (84%). The quality of the advice given was considered good in 98 (84%). The opportunity of referral for AFE was considered useful in 108 cases (93%). In 71 patients, information from both the specialist and the patient was obtained. Three patients had therapies that were not advised and 19 patients did not follow the advice (mainly dietary). In the 135 patients, AFE changed the management in 34 patients (25%). In the other 101 patients, endosonography was of value in determining the size of sphincter defects or the fistula tracks.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  AFE was well tolerated and changed the management in 25% of patients. Additional advice and reassurance were given in many patients; only 12% of patients claimed to have no benefit from the referral. Anal endosonography seems the most valuable test.
authors.affiliation: Department of Surgery, Free University Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. gastrol@azvu.nl
authors.forename: R J
authors.initials: RJ
authors.lastname: Felt-Bersma
authors.forename: A C
authors.initials: AC
authors.lastname: Poen
authors.forename: M A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Cuesta
authors.forename: S G
authors.initials: SG
authors.lastname: Meuwissen
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001003:Anal Canal / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000503:physiopathology; D001004:Anus Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy; D001294:Attitude to Health; D003376:Counseling; D003672:Defecation / Q000502:physiology; D019160:Endosonography; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008365:Manometry; D008875:Middle Aged; D010349:Patient Compliance; D010817:Physician-Patient Relations; D011351:Proctoscopy; D012002:Rectal Diseases / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology / Q000628:therapy; D012007:Rectum / Q000503:physiopathology; D012017:Referral and Consultation; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012677:Sensation / Q000502:physiology; D012737:Sex Factors; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires