Diagnostics (Jul 2024)

A Handheld Ultrasound Device Can Predict Constipation with Rectal Fecal Retention in a Palliative Care Setting

  • Atsushi Yamamoto,
  • Takaomi Kessoku,
  • Tomoki Ogata,
  • Tsumugi Jono,
  • Kota Takahashi,
  • Kosuke Tanaka,
  • Ko Suzuki,
  • Yuma Takeda,
  • Anna Ozaki,
  • Yuki Kasai,
  • Naoki Okubo,
  • Michihiro Iwaki,
  • Takashi Kobayashi,
  • Noboru Misawa,
  • Tsutomu Yoshihara,
  • Akihiro Suzuki,
  • Akiko Fuyuki,
  • Sho Hasegawa,
  • Kento Imajo,
  • Noritoshi Kobayashi,
  • Masaru Matsumoto,
  • Nao Tamai,
  • Hiromi Sanada,
  • Shunsuke Oyamada,
  • Yasushi Ichikawa,
  • Atsushi Nakajima

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14151626
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 15
p. 1626

Abstract

Read online

Although handheld ultrasound devices (HUDs) are commonplace, their ability to diagnose fecal retention (FR) remains unclear. This prospective observational study examined HUDs’ usefulness in diagnosing FR in patients with constipation in a palliative care setting. Between 10 December 2020 and 30 June 2022, we compared rectal ultrasonographic findings obtained using HUDs with clinical manifestations in 64 males and 70 females (48%, 52%, 68 ± 11 years old) with constipation who had undergone computed tomography (CT). FR was diagnosed using a HUD and compared with CT and digital rectal examination (DRE) results. In total, 42 (31%), 42 (31%), and 41 (31%) patients were diagnosed using HUDs, CT, and DRE, respectively. Thirty-nine (93%) patients in the CT group were also diagnosed with FR using HUDs. A total of 89 of 92 patients with a negative CT diagnosis also had a negative HUD diagnosis. Among the 41 patients in the DRE group, 37 were also diagnosed with FR using HUDs. Among 93 patients with a negative DRE diagnosis, 86 had a negative HUD diagnosis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of HUDs for CT were 93%, 97%, 93%, and 97%, respectively. Those of HUDs for DRE were 88%, 94%, 86%, and 95%, respectively. The concordance rates for FR diagnosis were 128/134 for CT and HUDs and 123/134 for DRE and HUDs. HUD was useful for diagnosing FR in this setting. HUDs could provide valuable support for appropriate treatment selection. Developing a constipation treatment algorithm based on rectal ultrasonographic findings is warranted in the future.

Keywords