Does Rectoanal Intussusception Limit Improvements in Clinical Outcome and Quality of Life After Sacral Nerve Stimulation for Fecal Incontinence?

BACKGROUND: Sacral nerve stimulation is a treatment option for severe, medically refractory fecal incontinence, although its use in patients with anatomic abnormalities remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether patients with rectoanal intussusception achieve similar benefits from device implantation to patients without rectoanal intussusception. DESIGN: Retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. Demographics and clinical data were collected for each patient, including preoperative pelvic floor testing. Defecographies were reanalyzed in a blinded manner. Preoperative rectoanal intussusception was determined on the basis of the Oxford system (grade III-IV vs not; grade V excluded). SETTINGS: Academic-affiliated pelvic health center. PATIENTS: All patients undergoing sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence between July 2011 and July 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Fecal Incontinence Severity Indices, and Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Indices at 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-nine patients underwent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence during the study period. The average age was 60.3 years and 91% were female. Forty-six patients (27.2%) had concomitant rectoanal intussusception (38 patients [22.5%] grade III and 8 patients [4.7%] grade IV). Before surgery, patients reported an average of 10.8 accidents per week and a Wexner score of 15.7, with no difference between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception ( p = 0.22 and 0.95). At 1 year after surgery, the average Wexner score was 9.5. There was no difference in postoperative Wexner scores (10.4 vs 9.2, p = 0.23) or improvement over time between patients with and without rectoanal intussusception (-6.7 vs -5.7, p = 0.40). Similarly, there was no difference in quality of life or frequency of incontinence to liquid or solid stool. LIMITATIONS: Single-institution, moderate sample size, incomplete survey response. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant rectoanal intussusception does not appear to affect clinical outcomes or quality of life after sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence. Appropriate patients with fecal incontinence and rectoanal intussusception can be considered for sacral nerve stimulation placement. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192 . LA INTUSUSCEPCIN RECTOANAL LIMITA LAS MEJORAS EN EL RESULTADO CLNICO Y LA CALIDAD DE VIDA DESPUS DE LA NEUROESTIMULACION SACRA PARA LA INCONTINENCIA FECAL: ANTECEDENTES:La neuroestimulación sacra es una opción de tratamiento para la incontinencia fecal grave refractaria al tratamiento médico, aunque su uso en pacientes con anomalías anatómicas sigue siendo controvertido.OBJETIVO:Determinar si los pacientes con intususcepción rectoanal logran beneficios similares de la implantación del dispositivo a los pacientes sin intususcepción rectoanal.DISEÑO:Revisión retrospectiva de una base de datos mantenida prospectivamente. Se recopilaron datos demográficos y clínicos de cada paciente, incluidas las pruebas preoperatorias del piso pélvico. Las defecografías se volvieron a analizar de forma ciega. La intususcepción rectoanal preoperatoria se determinó según el sistema de Oxford (grado III-IV vs. no; grado V excluido).ESCENARIO:Centro académico de salud pélvica.PACIENTES:Todos los pacientes sometidos a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal entre julio de 2011 y julio de 2019.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence/Wexner Scores, Índices de gravedad de la incontinencia fecal, Índices de calidad de vida de la incontinencia fecal al año.RESULTADOS:169 pacientes se sometieron a neuroestimulación sacra por incontinencia fecal durante el período de estudio. La edad promedio fue de 60.3 años y el 91% eran mujeres. Cuarenta y seis pacientes (27.2%) tenían intususcepción rectoanal concomitante (38 [22.5%] grado III y 8 [4.7%] grado IV). Antes de la cirugía, los pacientes informaron un promedio de 10.8 accidentes por semana y una puntuación de Wexner de 15.7 sin diferencia entre pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (p = 0.22 y 0.95). Un año después de la cirugía, la puntuación promedio de Wexner fue de 9.5. No hubo diferencia en las puntuaciones de Wexner posoperatorias (10.4 frente a 9.2, p = 0.23) o mejoría con el tiempo entre los pacientes con y sin intususcepción rectoanal (-6.7 frente a -5.7, p = 0.40). De manera similar, no hubo diferencia en la calidad de vida o la frecuencia de incontinencia de heces líquidas o sólidas.LIMITACIONES:Institución única, tamaño de muestra moderado, respuesta de encuesta incompleta.CONCLUSIÓN:La intususcepción rectoanal concomitante no parece afectar los resultados clínicos o la calidad de vida después de la neuroestimulación sacra para la incontinencia fecal. Los pacientes apropiados con incontinencia fecal e intususcepción rectoanal pueden ser considerados para la neuroestimulación sacra. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C192(Traducción-Dr. Jorge Silva Velazco ).

Comparative effectiveness of biofeedback and injectable bulking agents for treatment of fecal incontinence: Design and methods.

Fecal incontinence (FI), the involuntary passage of stool, is common and can markedly impair the quality of life. Among patients who fail initial options (pads or protective devices, bowel modifying agents, and pelvic floor exercises), the options are pelvic floor biofeedback (BIO), perianal injection with bulking agents (INJ), and sacral nerve electrical stimulation (SNS), which have not been subjected to head-to-head comparisons. This study will compare the safety and efficacy of BIO and INJ for managing FI. The impact of these approaches on quality-of-life and psychological distress, cost effectiveness, and predictors of response to therapy will also be evaluated. Six centers in the United States will enroll approximately 285 patients with moderate to severe FI. Patients who have 4 or more FI episodes over 2 weeks proceed to a 4-week trial of enhanced medical management (EMM) (ie, education, bowel management, and pelvic floor exercises). Thereafter, 194 non-responders as defined by a less than 75% reduction in the frequency of FI will be randomized to BIO or INJ. Three months later, the efficacy, safety, and cost of therapy will be assessed; non-responders will be invited to choose to add the other treatment or SNS for the remainder of the study. Early EMM responders will be re-evaluated 3 months later and non-responders randomized to BIO or INJ. Standardized, and where appropriate validated approaches will be used for study procedures, which will be performed by trained personnel. Prospectively collected data on care costs and resource utilization will be used for cost effectiveness analyses.

A multicenter study of anorectal pressures and rectal sensation measured with portable manometry in healthy women and men.

BACKGROUND: The equipment and methods for performing anorectal manometry and biofeedback therapy are different and not standardized. Normal values are influenced by age and sex. Our aims were to generate reference values, examine effects of gender and age, and compare anorectal pressures measured with diagnostic and biofeedback catheters and a portable manometry system. METHODS: In this multicenter study, anorectal pressures at rest, during squeeze, and evacuation were measured with diagnostic and biofeedback catheters using Mcompass™ portable device in healthy subjects. Balloon expulsion time and rectal sensation were evaluated. The effects of age and gender were assessed. RESULTS: The final dataset comprised 108 (74 women) of 124 participants with normal rectal balloon expulsion time (less than 60 s). During squeeze, anal resting pressure increased by approximately twofold in women and threefold in men. During evacuation, anal pressure exceeded rectal pressure in 87 participants (diagnostic catheter). The specific rectoanal pressures (e.g., resting pressure) were significantly correlated and not different between diagnostic and biofeedback catheters. With the diagnostic catheter, the anal squeeze pressure and rectal pressure during evacuation were greater in men than women (p ≤ 0.02). Among women, women aged 50 years and older had lower anal resting pressure; rectal pressure and the rectoanal gradient during evacuation were greater in older than younger women (p ≤ 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Anal and rectal pressures measured with diagnostic and biofeedback manometry catheters were correlated and not significantly different. Pressures were influenced by age and sex, providing reference values in men and women.

Systematic Review of Surgical Treatments for Fecal Incontinence.

BACKGROUND: No systematic review has examined the collective randomized and nonrandomized evidence for fecal incontinence treatment effectiveness across the range of surgical treatments. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and harms of surgical treatments for fecal incontinence in adults. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as hand searches of systematic reviews, were used as data sources. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators screened abstracts for eligibility (surgical treatment of fecal incontinence in adults, published 1980-2015, randomized controlled trial or observational study with comparator; case series were included for adverse effects). Full-text articles were reviewed for patient-reported outcomes. We extracted data, assessed study risk of bias, and evaluated strength of evidence for each treatment-outcome combination. INTERVENTIONS: Surgical treatments for fecal incontinence were included interventions. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fecal incontinence episodes/severity, quality of life, urgency, and pain were measured. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria (13 randomized trials and 9 observational trials); 53 case series were included for harms. Most patients were middle-aged women with mixed FI etiologies. Intervention and outcome heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. Evidence was insufficient for all of the surgical comparisons. Few studies examined the same comparisons; no studies were high quality. Functional improvements varied; some authors excluded those patients with complications or lost to follow-up from analyses. Complications ranged from minor to major (infection, bowel obstruction, perforation, and fistula) and were most frequent after the artificial bowel sphincter (22%-100%). Major surgical complications often required reoperation; few required permanent colostomy. LIMITATIONS: Most evidence is intermediate term, with small patient samples and substantial methodologic limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was insufficient to support clinical or policy decisions for any surgical treatments for fecal incontinence in adults. More invasive surgical procedures had substantial complications. The lack of compliance with study reporting standards is a modifiable impediment in the field. Future studies should focus on longer-term outcomes and attempt to identify subgroups of adults who might benefit from specific procedures.

Long-term results of anterior sphincteroplasty.

PURPOSE: This study was designed to evaluate the outcome of anterior sphincteroplasty in a large series with ten-year follow-up. METHODS: The long-term results in 191 consecutive patients who were a median of ten years from sphincteroplasty were assessed. A questionnaire was administered to assess current bowel function, degree of incontinence, and quality of life as measured by the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale. Subjective assessment of early outcome was available for most patients at a median follow-up of three years. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, three patients died and one developed severe dementia. Five patients required further surgery for incontinence and were considered failures. Of the remaining 182 patients, 130 (71 percent) returned a completed questionnaire. At ten years follow-up, 6 percent had no incontinence, 16 percent were incontinent of gas only, 19 percent had soiling only, and 57 percent were incontinent of solid stool. Results worsened significantly between the assessments at three and ten years. The only significant predictors of a poor outcome were older age and fecal incontinence at three years. Preoperative anorectal physiology studies did not predict outcome. Scores on the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale were lower in those with fecal incontinence, indicating a poorer disease-specific quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Only 40 percent of patients maintain fecal continence long-term after sphincteroplasty. Older patients and patients with poorer short-term function are more likely to have fecal incontinence at ten years. Incontinence at ten years had a negative effect on quality of life. Further research is needed to develop techniques to improve long-term continence in these patients.