Fecal incontinence subtype assessment (FI-SA): A new tool to distinguish among subtypes of fecal incontinence in a neurogenic population.

INTRODUCTION: Two subtypes of fecal incontinence (FI) are defined in the literature (urge and passive FI). The pertinence of this classification is unknown due to conflicting findings and heterogeneity of definitions. However, no questionnaire is available to clearly classify patients among subtypes. The objective of the present study was to develop and validate a new tool (Fecal incontinence subtype assessment, FI-SA) in order to better classify patients among the different subtypes of FI. METHODS: A prospective monocentric study was conducted in consecutive patients with FI according to Rome IV criteria. To validate psychometric properties of the FI-SA questionnaire, a literature review and qualitative interviews were performed and discussed with an expert panel. A feasibility study was realized to assess acceptability and comprehension of items. The reproducibility was investigated in a validation study. RESULTS: Comprehension and acceptability were excellent in 90% of patients in the feasibility study (n = 30). Validation study (n = 100) showed a good reproducibility with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.91 and 0.89 for questions 1 and 2. Time to fill the questionnaire was 40.0 s. 98.0% patients were classified among subtypes of FI: 34.0% passive FI, 32.0% urge FI and 32.0% mixed FI. CONCLUSION: FI-SA is the first questionnaire to classify patients among subtypes of FI with good psychometric characteristics and the first questionnaire introducing the concept of mixed FI. FI-SA could help to determine the pertinence of this classification of FI in the management of these patients.

Comparison of clinical and paraclinical characteristics of patients with urge, mixed, and passive fecal incontinence: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: Two subgroups of fecal incontinence (FI) are described in literature and used in clinical practice. However, the pertinence of this classification of FI is still unknown as there are no clear established guidelines. To a better understanding, we performed a systematic review to characterize the different types of FI (active, passive, or mixed) on the basis of clinical presentation and complementary explorations. METHODS: This systematic literature review was performed in reference to recommendations for systematic review using PRISMA guidelines without date restriction, until May 2020. This systematic review was performed without temporal limitation using MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases. RESULTS: Six hundred nine unique citations were identified from all the databases combined. Of those, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 8 retrospective observational studies and 13 prospective observational studies. There was a lack of homogeneity in definitions of passive and urge (active) FI among studies. Prevalence of passive and urge FI was respectively of 4.0-5.0 and 15.0-35.0%. Clinical characteristics, physical examination, and endoanal imaging were not evaluated in most studies. In anorectal manometry, maximal squeeze pressure was higher in passive FI subgroup in most studies and results regarding maximal resting pressure remain discordant. There seemed to be no difference regarding first sensation volume and maximal tolerable volume among subgroups. A few studies evaluated pudendal terminal nerve motor latency with no difference among subgroups. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of well-conducted prospective studies comparing the different subtypes of FI with validated definitions in both clinical and paraclinical examinations.