Clinical and economic evaluation of surgical treatments for faecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence affects 1-2 per cent of the adult population. While many patients can be managed successfully with conservative therapy, a small proportion require surgery. Improved imaging techniques and technological advances have led to the availability of a wide range of surgical treatments. Decision-makers increasingly require clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of surgical treatments for faecal incontinence. This review examines the practical aspects of undertaking such studies. METHODS: The practical issues related to different aetiologies, different types of treatment, defining outcomes, the hidden costs of the condition and its treatment, the rapid changes in technology and issues of patient choice were all considered. A Medline search was undertaken to identify relevant publications, and the reference lists of identified papers were scanned manually. RESULTS: There are few randomized controlled studies and those that have been performed have been limited in their scope. There has also been very limited health economic analysis undertaken. Strategies for conducting such studies, and the criteria they use, have been outlined. CONCLUSION: Randomized trials have a limited role in this setting because of variations in aetiology, difficulty in standardizing procedures, continuing evolution of devices, small patient numbers, concerns for patient choice and the need for long-term follow-up. Issues to be addressed when evaluating interventions for faecal incontinence include choosing appropriate measures of surgical outcome, using new continence scoring systems and tools for quality-of-life assessment, and choosing appropriate cost perspectives and time horizons for economic evaluation.

Assessment of external anal sphincter morphology in idiopathic fecal incontinence with endocoil magnetic resonance imaging.

The failure of external anal sphincter repair may relate to sphincter atrophy where muscle fibers are replaced by fat, seen on MRI due to the differing signals returned by fat and muscle tissue. Manometry, electrophysiology, and MRI with an endocoil were performed on 34 fecally incontinent patients with intact sphincters on endosonography. The area of the external sphincter was measured in the midcoronal plane, and the percentage fat content calculated. Sphincter muscle area correlated strongly with squeeze pressure (P < 0.001) but not with percentage fat content. There was no relationship between percentage fat and age, weight, anal sensation, squeeze pressure, sphincter length or width, or pudendal nerve terminal motor latency. There was a trend for smaller sphincters to contain a higher percentage fat content (P = 0.059). MRI has established a relationship between function and external sphincter bulk, but not fat content, although smaller muscles may contain more fat.

Prospective assessment of interobserver agreement for endoanal MRI in fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Endoanal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is a new technique for the assessment of anal sphincter integrity in fecal incontinence and an alternative to anal endosonography. The present study aimed to determine interobserver variation for assessment of anal sphincter integrity using endoanal MR imaging. METHODS: Fifty-two consecutive anally incontinent patients underwent MR imaging by using a purpose-built endoanal receiver coil and static 1.0-T magnet. T2-weighted axial, coronal, and sagittal scans were independently assessed by two radiologists who noted external and internal sphincter integrity. Findings were compared and agreement was assessed with the kappa statistic. RESULTS: There was disagreement in 18 of 49 technically adequate studies (37%; kappa = 0.46), indicating "moderate" agreement. Agreement was strongest if the sphincters were either both intact or both disrupted. Observers agreed in only one diagnosis of an isolated internal sphincter defect and in no diagnosis of an isolated external sphincter defect. CONCLUSION: The overall interobserver agreement for assessment of sphincter integrity using endoanal MR imaging is "moderate." Interobserver agreement using endoanal MR imaging is less than that reported for anal endosonography.

Prospective assessment of accuracy of endoanal MR imaging and endosonography in patients with fecal incontinence.

OBJECTIVE: Endoanal MR imaging was prospectively compared with anal endosonography to determine any superiority in the characterization of sphincter morphology in fecal incontinence. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two consecutive patients with fecal incontinence were examined with anal endosonography and endoanal MR imaging after a detailed bowel history, clinical examination, and complete anorectal physiologic testing. External and internal anal sphincter integrity was noted on both endosonograms and MR images by two radiologists in consensus, who read individual scans in a random order to avoid recall bias. Imaging findings were subsequently compared, and arbitration of any disagreement between endosonography and MR imaging was made in consensus by a surgeon and a gastroenterologist who also had access to the patient's history, clinical examination, and anorectal physiologic testing results. RESULTS: Complete agreement was found between anal endosonographic and MR imaging interpretations in 32 patients (62%): 10 with combined external and internal sphincter injuries, two with isolated internal sphincter injury, and 20 with intact sphincters. Of 20 patients in whom results of the scans were disparate, incorrect interpretation was found on endosonography in six patients, on MR imaging in 15. Overall, one error relating to the internal sphincter was made on endosonography versus 12 on MR imaging (p = 0.002), and five errors relating to the external sphincter were made on endosonography versus six on MR imaging (p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that endoanal sonography and endoanal MR imaging are equivalent in diagnosing external anal sphincter injury, but MR imaging is inferior in diagnosing internal anal sphincter injury.