Clinical utility of trans-sacral magnetic stimulation-evoked sphincter potentials and high-density electromyography in pelvic floor assessment: Technical evaluation.

AIM: Faecal incontinence is common and of multifactorial aetiologies, yet current diagnostic tools are unable to assess nerve and sphincter function objectively. We developed an anorectal high-density electromyography (HD-EMG) probe to evaluate motor-evoked potentials induced via trans-sacral magnetic stimulation (TSMS). METHOD: Anorectal probes with an 8 × 8 array of electrodes spaced 1 cm apart were developed for recording HD-EMG of the external anal sphincter. These HD-EMG probes were used to map MEP amplitudes and latencies evoked via TSMS delivered through the Magstim Rapid2 (MagStim Company). Patients undergoing pelvic floor investigations were recruited for this IDEAL Stage 2a pilot study. RESULTS: Eight participants (median age 49 years; five female) were recruited. Methodological viability, safety and diagnostic workflow were established. The test was well tolerated with median discomfort scores ≤2.5/10, median pain scores ≤1/10 and no adverse events. Higher Faecal Incontinence Severity Index scores correlated with longer MEP latencies (r = 0.58, p < 0.001) and lower MEP amplitudes (r = -0.32, p = 0.046), as did St. Mark's Incontinence Scores with both MEP latencies (r = 0.49, p = 0.001) and MEP amplitudes (r = -0.47, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: This HD-EMG probe in conjunction with TSMS presents a novel diagnostic tool for anorectal function assessment. Spatiotemporal assessment of magnetically stimulated MEPs correlated well with symptoms and offers a feasible, safe and patient-tolerable method of evaluating pudendal nerve and external anal sphincter function. Further clinical development and evaluation of these techniques is justified.

Factors affecting timing of loop ileostomy closure: a regional centre's experience with 106 patients.

INTRODUCTION: The burden of defunctioning ileostomy is significant with up to two thirds of patients reporting stoma-related morbidity. While timely reversal is safe and cost-effective, the time to reversal in regional Australian hospitals is not well described in professional publications. We aim to assess the current timeliness of ileostomy closure and identify possible reasons for delaying closure. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of loop ileostomies created and reversed in Launceston General Hospital for both rectal cancer surgery and other benign indications was undertaken. Patients with loop ileostomy created between 2010 and 2020 were included. Clinical data of timing of events, complications, readmission and stoma follow-up were recorded; and analysed using multivariate regression analyses to identify clinically relevant risk factors for delayed closure. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients underwent loop-ileostomy formation during the study period, of which 106 patients (86.2%) were reversed. Median time to closure was 8.5 months (IQR 5.2-12.4) for patients with rectal cancers, compared to 5.2 months (IQR 3.6-9.3) for patients who did not have rectal cancer, with a difference of 3.4 months (95% CI 0.9, 5.9; P = 0.008). Adjuvant chemotherapy and unexpected readmission to hospital were associated with delayed reversal (P = 0.0081 and P = 0.0005, respectively). CONCLUSION: Stoma reversal is often scheduled 3-6 months after creation. More than two-thirds of patients experienced delays due to changing clinical concerns and non-clinical factors, such as unexpected delays at each stage of surgical planning. Early placement on the waiting list and better-coordinated follow-ups may expedite reversal surgery and reduce associated morbidities.