Home electrical stimulation for women with fecal incontinence: a preliminary randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the effectiveness and cost of home electrical stimulation and standardized biofeedback training in females with fecal incontinence METHODS: Thirty-six females suffering from fecal incontinence were randomized into two groups, matched for mean age (67.45 ± 7.2 years), mean body mass index (kg/m2) (26.2 ± 3.9), mean disease duration (4.1 ± 0.8 years), mean number of births (2.7 ± 1.3), and reports of obstetric trauma (25%). Questionnaires were used to evaluate their demographics, medical, and childbearing history. Subjects were randomized to home electrical stimulation or standardized biofeedback training for a period of 6 weeks. Subjective outcome measures included the frequency of fecal, urine, and gas incontinence by visual analog scale, Vaizey incontinence score, and subjects' levels of fecal incontinence related anxiety. Objective outcome measures included pelvic floor muscle strength assessed by surface electromyography. We also compared the cost of each treatment modality. RESULTS: Only females who received home electrical stimulation (HES) reported a significant improvement in Vaizey incontinence score (p = 0.001), anxiety (p = 0.046), and in frequency of leaked solid stool (p = 0.013). A significant improvement in pelvic floor muscle strength was achieved by both groups. HES was much cheaper compared to the cost of standardized biofeedback training (SBT) (US $100 vs. US $220, respectively). Our study comprised a small female population, and the study endpoints did not include objective measures of anorectal function test, such as anorectal manometry, before and after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Home electrical stimulation may offer an alternative to standardized biofeedback training as it is effective and generally well-tolerated therapy for females with fecal incontinence.

Prevalence of intra-abdominal surgery: what is an individual's lifetime risk?

BACKGROUND: The lifetime risk of intra-abdominal surgery is unknown. The objectives of this study were to derive this information from our local population, and to consider the role of incidental surgery. METHODS: Over an 8-year period, 2648 autopsy and clinical records from a public and private hospital were reviewed for evidence of intra-abdominal surgery. RESULTS: 2262 (85%) cases were from the public hospital and 386 (15%) from the private hospital. The adjusted intra-abdominal surgical rate was 43.8% in those over the age of 60. With the exception of the age group 21-40, there were no statistical significant differences in operative rates between hospitals. The intra-abdominal surgical rate over the age of 60 was used as an estimate of the lifetime risk of intra-abdominal surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The lifetime risk of intra-abdominal surgery can be used to assess the utilization of healthcare among ethnic groups and in considering the role of incidental surgery.

Incidence and management of colonoscopic perforations: 8 years' experience.

AIM: To review the experience of a major medical teaching center with diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopies and to assess the incidence and management of related colonic perforations. METHODS: All colonoscopies performed between January 1994 and December 2001 were studied. Data on patients, colonoscopic reports and procedure-related complications were collected from the departmental computerized database. The medical records of the patients with post procedural colonic perforation were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 120067 colonoscopies were performed during the 8 years of the study. Seven colonoscopic perforations (4 females, 3 males) were diagnosed (0.058%). Five occurred during diagnostic and two during therapeutic colonoscopy. Six were suspected during or immediately after colonoscopy. All except one had signs of diffuse tenderness and underwent immediate operation with primary repair done in 4 patients. No deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: Perforation rate during colonoscopy is low. Nevertheless, it is a serious complication and its early recognition and treatment are essential to optimize outcome. In patients with diffuse peritonitis early operative intervention makes primary repair a safe option.