Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence: external anal sphincter defect vs. intact anal sphincter.

PURPOSE: This prospective study was designed to assess the effectiveness of sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence in patients with external anal sphincter defect and to evaluate its efficacy regarding presence and size of sphincter defect. METHODS: Fifty-three consecutive patients who underwent sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence were divided into two groups: external anal sphincter defect group (n = 21) vs. intact sphincter group (n = 32). Follow-up was performed at 3, 6, and 12 months with anorectal physiology, Wexner's score, bowel diary, and quality of life questionnaires. RESULTS: The external anal sphincter defect group (defect <90 degrees:defect 90 degrees-120 degrees = 11:10) and intact sphincter group were comparable with regard to age (mean, 63 vs. 63.6) and sex. Incidence of internal anal sphincter defect and pudendal neuropathy was similar. All 53 patients benefited from sacral nerve stimulation. Weekly incontinent episodes decreased from 13.8 to 5 (P < 0.0001) for patients with external anal sphincter defects and from 6.7 to 2 (P = 0.001) for patients with intact sphincter at 12-month follow-up. Quality of life scores improved in both groups (P < 0.0125). There was no significant difference in improvement in functional outcomes after sacral nerve stimulation between patients with or without external anal sphincter defects. Clinical benefit of sacral nerve stimulation was similar among patients with external anal sphincter defects, irrespective of its size. Presence of pudendal neuropathy did not affect outcome of neurostimulation. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral nerve stimulation for fecal incontinence is as effective in patients with external anal sphincter defects as those with intact sphincter and the result is similar for defect size up to 120 degrees of circumference.

Sacral nerve stimulation is more effective than optimal medical therapy for severe fecal incontinence: a randomized, controlled study.

PURPOSE: This randomized study was designed to compare the effect of sacral neuromodulation with optimal medical therapy in patients with severe fecal incontinence. METHODS: Patients (aged 39-86 years) with severe fecal incontinence were randomized to have sacral nerve stimulation (SNS group; n = 60) or best supportive therapy (control; n = 60), which consisted of pelvic floor exercises, bulking agent, and dietary manipulation. Full assessment included endoanal ultrasound, anorectal physiology, two-week bowel diary, and fecal incontinence quality of life index. The follow-up duration was 12 months. RESULTS: The sacral nerve stimulation group was similar to the control group with regard to gender (F:M = 11:1 vs. 14:1) and age (mean, 63.9 vs. 63 years). The incidence of a defect of < or = 120 degrees of the external anal sphincter and pudendal neuropathy was similar between the groups. Trial screening improved incontinent episodes by more than 50 percent in 54 patients (90 percent). Full-stage sacral nerve stimulation was performed in 53 of these 54 "successful" patients. There were no septic complications. With sacral nerve stimulation, mean incontinent episodes per week decreased from 9.5 to 3.1 (P < 0.0001) and mean incontinent days per week from 3.3 to 1 (P < 0.0001). Perfect continence was accomplished in 25 patients (47.2 percent). In the sacral nerve stimulation group, there was a significant (P < 0.0001) improvement in fecal incontinence quality of life index in all four domains. By contrast, there was no significant improvement in fecal continence and the fecal incontinence quality of life scores in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Sacral neuromodulation significantly improved the outcome in patients with severe fecal incontinence compared with the control group undergoing optimal medical therapy.

Evolving therapy for fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Fecal incontinence is common and can be socially debilitating. Nonoperative management of fecal incontinence includes dietary modification, antidiarrheal medication, and biofeedback. The traditional surgical approach is sphincteroplasty if there is a defect of the external sphincter. Innovative treatment modalities have included sacral nerve stimulation, injectable implants, dynamic graciloplasty, and artificial bowel sphincter. DISCUSSION: This review was designed to assess the various surgical options available for fecal incontinence and critically evaluate the evidence behind these procedures. The algorithm in the surgical treatment of fecal incontinence is shifting. Injectable therapy and sacral nerve stimulation are likely to be the mainstay in future treatment of moderate and severe fecal incontinence, respectively. Sphincteroplasty is limited to a small group of patients with isolated defect of the external sphincter. A stoma, although effective, can be avoided in most cases.

Oral sodium phosphate (Fleet) is a superior colonoscopy preparation to Picopre (sodium picosulfate-based preparation).

PURPOSE: Small-volume bowel preparation is better tolerated than 4-liter polyethylene glycol lavage. However, the efficacy of various small-volume bowel preparation agents for colonoscopy has not been clearly defined. This randomized, controlled trial was designed to compare oral sodium phosphate (Fleet) with Picoprep (sodium picosulfate-based preparation). METHODS: Two hundred twenty-five outpatients, aged 65 years or younger, who would undergo colonoscopy by two endoscopists were randomized to receive two bottles of oral sodium phosphate or three sachets of Picoprep. A standardized questionnaire was completed by all patients and the endoscopists. The endoscopists were blinded to the preparation used. RESULTS: One hundred three patients were randomized to oral sodium phosphate (Fleet) (Group 1) and 122 patients to Picoprep (Group 2). Three patients were excluded because of colonic strictures. The groups were similar in age and gender, indications for colonoscopy, and previous colonic surgery. The quality of bowel cleansing in patients taking oral sodium phosphate (Fleet) was significantly better than Picoprep as assessed by the endoscopists (P = 0.0014). Both types of bowel preparation were associated with similar incidence of nausea (P = 0.4927), dizziness (P= 0.9663), abdominal cramps (P = 0.7157), and patient acceptability (P = 0.0767). Equal majority from either group would use the same bowel preparation again (91 percent of oral sodium phosphate (Fleet) and 93 percent of Picoprep group; P = 0.6172). Although Picoprep was better tasting (P = 0.0273), oral sodium phosphate (Fleet)was perceived to be a good preparation agent by a greater (although not significant) proportion of patients (P = 0.0853). CONCLUSIONS: Oral sodium phosphate (Fleet) is more effective in bowel cleansing than Picoprep as a bowel preparation agent. Both agents have similar side effects and patient acceptance.

Preoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer causes prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency.

PURPOSE: A worsened anorectal function after chemoradiation for high-risk rectal cancer is often attributed to radiation damage of the anorectum and pelvic floor. Its impact on pudendal nerve function is unclear. This prospective study evaluated the short-term effect of preoperative combined chemoradiation on anorectal physiologic and pudendal nerve function. METHODS: Sixty-six patients (39 men, 27 women) with localized resectable (T3, T4, or N1) rectal cancer were included in the study. All patients received 45 Gy (1.8 Gy/day in 25 fractions) over five weeks, plus 5-fluorouracil (350 mg/m2/day) and leucovorin (20 mg/m2/day) concurrently on days 1 to 5 and 29 to 33. Patients who had rectal cancer with a distal margin within 6 cm of the anal verge had the anus included in the field of radiotherapy (Group A, n = 26). Patients who had rectal cancer with a distal margin 6 to 12 cm from the anal verge had shielding of the anus during radiotherapy (Group B, n = 40). The Wexner continence score, anorectal manometry and pudendal nerve terminal motor latency were assessed at baseline and four weeks after completion of chemoradiation. RESULTS: The median Wexner score deteriorated significantly (P < 0.0001) from 0 to 2.5 for both Groups A (range, 0-8) and B (range, 0-14). The maximum resting anal pressures were unchanged after chemoradiation. The maximum squeeze anal pressures were reduced (mean = 166.5-157.5 mmHg) after chemoradiation. This change was similar in both Groups A and B. Eighteen patients (Group A = 7, Group B = 11) developed prolonged pudendal nerve terminal motor latency after chemoradiation. These 18 patients similarly had a worsened median Wexner continence score (range, 0-3) and maximum squeeze anal pressures (mean = 165.5-144 mmHg). The results obtained were independent of tumor response to chemoradiation. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative chemoradiation for rectal cancer carries a significant risk of pudendal neuropathy, which might contribute to the incidence of fecal incontinence after restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer.

Sacral nerve stimulation: an emerging treatment for faecal incontinence.

Faecal incontinence is common, distressing to the patient and socially incapacitating. The treatment options depend on the severity and aetiology of incontinence. For mild cases of faecal incontinence, medical management and pelvic floor physiotherapy may be adequate. For more severe cases, surgery is often required. Patients who have a distinct sphincter defect are amenable to surgical repair. In many cases, there is a combination of diffuse structural damage of the anal sphincters with pudendal neuropathy. Conventional surgical repairs have a modest degree of success and the results tend to deteriorate with time. Neosphincter procedures such as artificial bowel sphincter and dynamic graciloplasty are potentially morbid and technically complex. Sacral nerve stimulation is innovative and has had a medium-term success with improvement of quality of life in over 80% of patients treated for faecal incontinence. These results are superior to other techniques in treating patients with severe refractory faecal incontinence, where current maximal therapy has failed. The technique is unique because there is a screening phase, which has a high predictive value. It is also associated with minimal complications that are usually minor. However, most published reports of sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of faecal incontinence were case studies and methods of assessing outcome were variable. Criteria for patient selection are evolving and are yet to be defined. The present paper critically reviews the publications to date on sacral nerve stimulation for treatment of faecal incontinence. This will form the basis for future evaluation of this emerging treatment of severe, intractable faecal incontinence. Randomized clinical trials like that of the Melbourne trial will further clarify the role and indications of sacral nerve stimulation for faecal incontinence.

Carbohydrate-electrolyte (E-Lyte) solution enhances bowel preparation with oral fleet phospho-soda.

PURPOSE: Bowel preparation with oral sodium phosphate can cause symptomatic dehydration and electrolyte disturbances. This randomized, controlled trial was designed to evaluate whether carbohydrate-electrolyte (E-Lyte) solution enhanced bowel preparation and improved patient acceptance with oral sodium phosphate. METHODS: A total of 187 consecutive adults undergoing colonoscopy by two endoscopists were randomized to receive two packets of oral sodium phosphate (Fleet Phospho-soda) with or without additional supplement of a carbohydrate-electrolyte (E-Lyte) solution. All patients and endoscopists completed a standardized questionnaire. Urine-specific gravity and serum biochemistry were randomly performed in 150 and 50 patients, respectively. RESULTS: Ninety patients were randomized to have oral sodium phosphate with E-Lyte supplements (Group 1) and 94 patients to sodium phosphate without E-Lyte supplements (Group 2). The groups were similar in age and gender, indication for colonoscopy, and previous colonic surgery. Patients taking E-Lyte supplement had significantly less dizziness (none, 80 vs. 56 percent; P < 0.001) and a trend toward less nausea (none, 70 vs. 56 percent; P = 0.05). All patients in Group 1 completed the bowel preparation as opposed to 3 percent of Group 2 being unable to complete the preparation. Hypokalemia was significantly more frequent ( P = 0.008) in Group 2 patients without E-Lyte supplements. More patients in Group 2 needed intravenous rehydration (11 vs. 4 percent). Differences in serum creatinine and urine-specific gravity suggested possibly a lesser degree of hypovolemia in patients taking E-Lyte supplements. The quality of bowel cleansing in patients taking E-Lyte supplements was considered better by both the endoscopists and patients. CONCLUSIONS: Carbohydrate-electrolyte (E-Lyte) solution protects against hypokalemia, improves patient tolerability, and may enhance use of oral sodium phosphate as a bowel-preparation agent.