ABSTRACT
Faecal incontinence (FI) is a major health problem, both for individuals and for health systems. It is obvious that, for all these reasons, there is widespread concern for healing it or, at least, reducing as far as possible its numerous undesirable effects, in addition to the high costs it entails. There are different criteria for the diagnostic tests to be carried out and the same applies to the most appropriate treatment, among the numerous options that have proliferated in recent years, not always based on rigorous scientific evidence. For this reason, the Spanish Association of Coloproctology (AECP) proposed to draw up a consensus to serve as a guide for all health professionals interested in the problem, aware, however, that the therapeutic decision must be taken on an individual basis: patient characteristics/experience of the care team. For its development it was adopted the Nominal Group Technique methodology. The Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation were established according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. In addition, expert recommendations were added briefly to each of the items analysed.
Subject(s)
Electric Stimulation Therapy , Fecal Incontinence , Humans , Electric Stimulation Therapy/methods , Fecal Incontinence/diagnosis , Fecal Incontinence/therapy , Anal Canal , Evidence-Based MedicineABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Most patients with ischemic colitis have a favourable evolution; nevertheless, the location in the right colon has been associated with a worse prognosis. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical presentation and results of right colon ischemic colitis (CICD) with ischemic colitis of other colonic segments (non-CIDC). METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of patients admitted to our hospital with ischemic colitis between 1993 and 2014, identified through a computerized search of ICD9 codes. They were divided into 2 groups: CICD and non-CICD. Comorbidities, clinical presentation, need for surgery, and mortality were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for age and sex. Statistical significance was established at a value of Pâ¯<â¯0.05. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were identified, 61 (30%) with CICD; 61% of CICD patients required surgery compared to 22% of non-CICD patients (Pâ¯<â¯0.001). Differences in post-surgical mortality (32% vs 55%) and overall mortality (20% vs 15%) were not statistically significant. CICD patients had more commonly unfavourable outcomes than non-CICD patients (61% vs 25%, Pâ¯<â¯0.001). The odds ratio (OR) for surgery was 5.28 and 4.47 for unfavourable outcomes for patients with CICD. CONCLUSIONS: CICD patients have a worse prognosis than non-CICD patients, 5 times more likely to need surgery and 4 times more likely to have unfavourable outcomes.
Subject(s)
Colitis, Ischemic , Colitis, Ischemic/diagnosis , Humans , Prognosis , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Most patients with ischemic colitis have a favourable evolution; nevertheless, the location in the right colon has been associated with a worse prognosis. The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical presentation and results of right colon ischemic colitis (CICD) with ischemic colitis of other colonic segments (non-CIDC). METHODS: Retrospective, observational study of patients admitted to our hospital with ischemic colitis between 1993 and 2014, identified through a computerized search of the ICD9 codes. They were divided into 2groups: CICD and non-CICD. Comorbidities, clinical presentation, need for surgery, and mortality were compared. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression adjusting for age and sex. Statistical significance was established at a value of P <0.05. RESULTS: A total of 204 patients were identified, 61 (30%) with CICD; 61% of CICD patients required surgery compared to 22% of non-CICD patients (P <0.001). Post-surgical mortality (32 vs. 55%) and overall mortality (20 vs. 15%) differences were not statistically significant. CICD patients had more commonly unfavourable outcomes than non-CICD patients (61 vs. 25%, P <0.001). The odds ratio (OR) for surgery was 5.28 and 4.47 for unfavourable outcomes for patients with CICD. CONCLUSIONS: CICD patients have a worse prognosis than non-CICD patients, 5 times more likely to need surgery and 4 times more likely to have unfavourable outcomes.