Faecal incontinence with concurrent disorders of gut-brain interaction: A worse outcome.

BACKGROUND: Faecal incontinence is a common debilitating condition associated with poor quality of life that generates substantial economic strain on healthcare systems. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate, in a tertiary referral population presenting with faecal incontinence, the impact of suffering additional disorders of gut-brain interaction (DGBI) on symptom severity, anxiety, depression and quality of life. METHODS: Design: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary referral Neurogastroenterology centre. PATIENTS: All patients presenting with faecal incontinence from 2007 to 2020 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The results from structured medical and surgical questionnaires including Rome III Integrative Questionnaire, Faecal Incontinence Severity Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SF-36, and anorectal physiology were analysed using Stata version 17. Patients were categorised into 3 groups: 0-1 additional DGBI, 2 DGBIs, and 3+ DGBI. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05 (two-tailed). KEY RESULTS: Faecal incontinence patients (n = 249; mean age 63.4 ± 12.6 years; 93.6% female, 48.1% urge subtype) met diagnostic criteria for mean 2.2 additional DGBI each, mostly affecting bowel (n = 231, 42.4%) and anorectal (n = 150, 27.5%) regions. A greater number of DGBIs was associated with higher faecal incontinence symptom severity (p < 0.001), higher anxiety (p = 0.002) and depression (p = 0.003), and worse quality of life in areas of mental health (p = 0.037) and social effect (p < 0.001). Patients with a greater number of concurrent DGBI demonstrated a greater family history of gastrointestinal problems (p = 0.004). There were no associations found between a greater amount of DGBIs and anorectal physiology. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: A greater number of additional DGBIs in faecal incontinence patients was associated with worse faecal incontinence symptoms, higher anxiety and depression scores, and worse quality of life but was unrelated to physiology. This highlights the need to proactively search for comorbid DGBI in patients presenting with faecal incontinence.

The patient with obstructed defecatory symptoms: Management differs considerably between physicians and surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obstructed defecatory symptoms (ODS) are commonly referred to either gastroenterologists (GE) or colorectal surgeons (CS). Further management of these patients may be impacted by this choice of referral. METHODS: An online survey of specialist practice was disseminated to GE and CS in Australia and New Zealand. A case vignette of a patient presenting with ODS was described, with multiple subsequent scenarios designed to delineate the responder's preferred approach to management of this patient. KEY RESULTS: A total of 107 responders participated in the study, 62 CS and 45 GE. For a female patient with ODS not responding to pharmacological treatment, GE were more likely than CS to refer patients for anorectal manometry, while CS were more likely to refer for dynamic imaging. A quarter of CS and GE referred patients directly to pelvic floor physiotherapy, without any pre-treatment testing. Knowing the result of dynamic imaging, especially if a rectocele was demonstrated, substantially influenced management for both of the specialties: GE became more likely to refer the patients for CS consultation and less likely to refer directly for biofeedback or physiotherapy and CS were more likely to opt for an operative pathway over conservative management than they were prior to knowledge of the imaging findings. The majority (>75%) of GE and CS did not find it necessary to obtain a gynecological consultation, even in the presence of a rectocele. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Practice variation across medical specialties affects diagnostic and management recommendations for patients with ODS, impacting treatment pathways. Our findings provide an incentive toward establishing interdisciplinary, uniform, management guidelines.

Using a footstool does not aid simulated defecation in undifferentiated constipation: A randomized trial.

INTRODUCTION: The use of a footstool has been advocated to optimize posture when sitting on the toilet and thus facilitate bowel evacuation. We aimed to assess the alterations in defecatory posture, and the changes in simulated defecation with use of a footstool in patients with constipation. METHODS: Forty-one patients (female 93%, mean 52 year, SD 14 year) with constipation referred to a tertiary neurogastroenterology unit were enrolled. A bowel questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Rome questionnaire were administered prior to anorectal manometry. Each patient underwent three rectal balloon expulsion tests in randomized order with no footstool, a 7-inch, and a 9-inch footstool. Additional assessments included angle between spine and femur, and visual analogue scales assessing ease of evacuation, urge to defecate, and discomfort with expulsion. KEY RESULTS: Defecatory posture was significantly altered by footstool use, with progressive narrowing of the angle between the spine and femur as footstool height increased (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Compared with no footstool, the use of a footstool was not associated with a change in balloon expulsion time and there was no difference between the two footstool heights. Subjectively, no significant change was identified in any of the three perceptions of balloon expulsion between no footstool and footstool use. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Although the use of a footstool led to changes in defecatory posture, it did not improve subjective or objective measures of simulated defecation in patients with undifferentiated constipation. Therefore, the recommendation for its use during evacuation cannot be applied to all patients with constipation.

Experiencing multiple concurrent functional gastrointestinal disorders is associated with greater symptom severity and worse quality of life in chronic constipation and defecation disorders.

BACKGROUND: Recent community-based studies have demonstrated that experiencing multiple concurrent functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) is associated with increased somatization, worse quality of life (QoL), and greater health care utilization. However, the presence of multiple overlapping FGIDs is unstudied specifically in chronic constipation and functional defecation disorders (FDD). We investigated the prevalence and impact of additional nonconstipation FGIDs on constipation severity, anorectal physiology, anxiety and depression, and QoL, in patients with chronic constipation and FDD. METHODS: One-hundred and forty-six consecutive patients with functional constipation or irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-C/IBS-M) presenting to a tertiary referral Neurogastroenterology Clinic were studied. In addition, 90/146 (62%) qualified for FDD due to abnormal defecatory physiology. Patients underwent comprehensive baseline assessment comprising anorectal physiology, Bristol Stool Chart, Rome questionnaire, Knowles-Eccersley-Scott-Symptom (KESS) constipation score, Hospital Anxiety, and Depression Scale, and modified 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for QoL. Additional FGIDs were diagnosed using Rome III criteria. KEY RESULTS: Additional nonconstipation FGIDs occurred in 85% of patients, with a mean of 2.1 (SD 1.6) additional FGIDs. Patients with four or more additional FGIDs experienced greater constipation severity compared to those with no additional FGIDs (p = 0.004). Comorbid FGIDs were associated with worse SF-36 scores for physical functioning (p < 0.001), role-physical (p = 0.005), bodily pain (p < 0.001), vitality (p = 0.008), social functioning (p = 0.004), and mental health index (p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Functional gastrointestinal disorders comorbidity is highly prevalent in chronic constipation and defecatory disorders, and this is associated with greater symptom severity and worse QoL. Multimodal treatments targeting comorbid FGIDs may lead to superior outcomes.

Flatus Incontinence and Fecal Incontinence: A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Incontinence to gas can be a troublesome symptom impacting quality of life for patients even in the absence of fecal incontinence. Whether isolated flatus incontinence represents part of the spectrum of true fecal incontinence or a separate condition with a different pathophysiology remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical features and anorectal physiology in women presenting with severe isolated flatus incontinence compared to women with fecal incontinence and healthy asymptomatic women. DESIGN: This was a retrospective case-control study of prospectively collected data. SETTINGS: Data from participants were obtained from a single tertiary Neurogastroenterology Unit in Sydney, Australia. PATIENTS: Data from 34 patients with severe isolated flatus incontinence, 127 women with fecal incontinence' and 44 healthy women were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes were clinical (including demographic, obstetric, and symptom variables) and physiological differences across the 3 groups. RESULTS: Patients with flatus incontinence were significantly younger (mean 39 versus 63 years; p = 0.0001), had a shorter history of experiencing their symptoms ( p = 0.0001), and had harder stool form than patients with fecal incontinence ( p = 0.02). Those with flatus incontinence had an adverse obstetric history and impaired anorectal physiology (motor and sensory, specifically rectal hypersensitivity) but to a lesser extent than patients with fecal incontinence. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and modest sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Anorectal physiology was impaired in patients with flatus incontinence compared to healthy controls, but to a lesser extent than in those with fecal incontinence, raising the possibility that flatus incontinence could be a precursor to fecal incontinence. As clinical and physiological findings are different from healthy controls (including the presence of visceral hypersensitivity), isolated flatus incontinence should be considered a distinct clinical entity (like other functional GI disorders), or possibly part of an incontinence spectrum rather than purely a normal phenomenon. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B946 . INCONTINENCIA DE FLATOS E INCONTINENCIA FECAL UN ESTUDIO DE CASOS Y CONTROLES: ANTECEDENTES:La incontinencia de gases puede ser un síntoma molesto que afecta la calidad de vida de los pacientes incluso en ausencia de incontinencia fecal. Aún no está claro si la incontinencia de flatos aislada representa parte del espectro de la incontinencia fecal verdadera o una condición separada con una fisiopatología poco clara.OBJETIVO:Evaluar las características clínicas y la fisiología anorrectal en mujeres que presentan incontinencia grave aislada de flatos, en comparación con la incontinencia fecal y mujeres sanas asintomáticas.DISEÑO:Este fue un estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles de datos recolectados prospectivamente.AJUSTE:Los datos de los participantes se obtuvieron de una sola Unidad de Neurogastroenterología terciaria en Sydney, Australia.PACIENTES:Se analizaron los datos de 34 pacientes con incontinencia grave aislada de flatos, junto con 127 mujeres con incontinencia fecal y 44 mujeres sanas.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Los resultados primarios fueron clínicos (incluidas las variables demográficas, obstétricas y de síntomas), así como las diferencias fisiológicas entre los tres grupos.RESULTADOS:Los pacientes con incontinencia de flatos eran significativamente más jóvenes (media de 39 años frente a 63 años, p = 0,0001), tenían un historial más corto de experimentar sus síntomas (p = 0,0001) y tenían heces más duras que los pacientes con incontinencia fecal (p = 0,02). Aquellos con incontinencia de flatos tenían antecedentes obstétricos adversos y fisiología anorrectal alterada (motora y sensorial, específicamente hipersensibilidad rectal); aunque en menor medida que las pacientes con incontinencia fecal.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo y tamaño de muestra modesto.CONCLUSIONES:La fisiología anorrectal se vio afectada en las pacientes con incontinencia de flatos en comparación con las controles sanos, pero en menor medida que en aquellas con incontinencia fecal, lo que plantea la posibilidad de que la incontinencia de flatos pueda ser un precursor de la incontinencia fecal. Dado que los hallazgos clínicos y fisiológicos son diferentes a los de los controles sanos (incluida la presencia de hipersensibilidad visceral), la incontinencia de flatos aislada debe considerarse como una entidad clínica distinta (al igual que otros trastornos gastrointestinales funcionales), o posiblemente como parte de un espectro de incontinencia en lugar de un trastorno puramente a un fenómeno normal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B946 . (Traducción-Dr Yolanda Colorado ).

Faecal incontinence in adults.

Faecal incontinence, which is defined by the unintentional loss of solid or liquid stool, has a worldwide prevalence of ≤7% in community-dwelling adults and can markedly impair quality of life. Nonetheless, many patients might not volunteer the symptom owing to embarrassment. Bowel disturbances, particularly diarrhoea, anal sphincter trauma (obstetrical injury or previous surgery), rectal urgency and burden of chronic illness are the main risk factors for faecal incontinence; others include neurological disorders, inflammatory bowel disease and pelvic floor anatomical disturbances. Faecal incontinence is classified by its type (urge, passive or combined), aetiology (anorectal disturbance, bowel symptoms or both) and severity, which is derived from the frequency, volume, consistency and nature (urge or passive) of stool leakage. Guided by the clinical features, diagnostic tests and therapies are implemented stepwise. When simple measures (for example, bowel modifiers such as fibre supplements, laxatives and anti-diarrhoeal agents) fail, anorectal manometry and other tests (endoanal imaging, defecography, rectal compliance and sensation, and anal neurophysiological tests) are performed as necessary. Non-surgical options (diet and lifestyle modification, behavioural measures, including biofeedback therapy, pharmacotherapy for constipation or diarrhoea, and anal or vaginal barrier devices) are often effective, especially in patients with mild faecal incontinence. Thereafter, perianal bulking agents, sacral neuromodulation and other surgeries may be considered when necessary.

Review of the indications, methods, and clinical utility of anorectal manometry and the rectal balloon expulsion test.

BACKGROUND: Anorectal manometry (ARM) comprehensively assesses anorectal sensorimotor functions. PURPOSE: This review examines the indications, techniques, interpretation, strengths, and weaknesses of high-resolution ARM (HR-ARM), 3-dimensional high-resolution anorectal manometry (3D-HR-ARM), and portable ARM, and other assessments (i.e., rectal sensation and rectal balloon expulsion test) that are performed alongside manometry. It is based on a literature search of articles related to ARM in adults. HR-ARM and 3D-HR-ARM are useful for diagnosing defecatory disorders (DD), to identify anorectal sensorimotor dysfunction and guide management in patients with fecal incontinence (FI), constipation, megacolon, and megarectum; and to screen for anorectal structural (e.g., rectal intussusception) abnormalities. The rectal balloon expulsion test is a useful, low-cost, radiation-free, outpatient assessment tool for impaired evacuation that is performed and interpreted in conjunction with ARM. The anorectal function tests should be interpreted with reference to age- and sex-matched normal values, clinical features, and results of other tests. A larger database of technique-specific normal values and newer paradigms of analyzing anorectal pressure profiles will increase the precision and diagnostic utility of HR-ARM for identifying abnormal mechanisms of defecation and continence.

ACG Clinical Guidelines: Management of Benign Anorectal Disorders.

Benign anorectal disorders of structure and function are common in clinical practice. These guidelines summarize the preferred approach to the evaluation and management of defecation disorders, proctalgia syndromes, hemorrhoids, anal fissures, and fecal incontinence in adults and represent the official practice recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. The scientific evidence for these guidelines was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation process. When the evidence was not appropriate for Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, we used expert consensus to develop key concept statements. These guidelines should be considered as preferred but are not the only approaches to these conditions.

Volumetric Rectal Perception Testing: Is It Clinically Relevant? Results From a Large Patient Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Rectal perception testing is a recommended component of anorectal physiology testing. Although recent consensus (London) guidelines suggested criteria for categorizing hyporectal and hyper-rectal sensitivity, these were based on scant evidence. Moreover, data regarding diagnostic capabilities and clinical utility of rectal perception testing are lacking. The aims of this study were to determine the association between rectal perception testing and both clinical and physiological variables to enhance the analysis and interpretation of real-life test results. METHODS: Prospectively documented data from 1,618 (92% female) patients referred for anorectal physiology testing were analyzed for 3 rectal perception thresholds (first, urge, and maximal tolerated). Normal values derived from healthy female subjects were used to categorize each threshold into hyposensitive and hypersensitive to examine the clinical relevance of this categorization. RESULTS: There was poor to moderate agreement between the 3 thresholds. Older age, male sex, and constipation were associated with higher perception thresholds, whereas irritable bowel syndrome, fecal incontinence, connective tissue disease, and pelvic radiation were associated with lower perception thresholds to some, but not all, thresholds (P < 0.01 on multivariate analysis for all). The clinical utility and limitations of categorizing thresholds into "hypersensitivity" and "hyposensitivity" were determined. DISCUSSION: Commonly practiced rectal perception testing is correlated with several disease states and thus has clinical relevance. However, most disease states were correlated with 2 or even only 1 abnormal threshold, and agreement between thresholds was limited. This may suggest each threshold measures different pathophysiological pathways. We suggest all 3 thresholds be measured and reported separately in routine clinical testing.

A novel combined anorectal biofeedback and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation protocol for treating fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Fecal incontinence (FI) is a common, debilitating condition that causes major impact on quality of life for those affected. Non-surgical treatment options include anorectal biofeedback therapy (BF) and percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (PTNS), usually performed separately. The aims of the current study were to determine the feasibility, tolerability, safety, and efficacy of performing a combined BF and PTNS treatment protocol. METHODS: Female patients with urge FI were offered a novel pilot program combining BF with PTNS. The treatment protocol consisted of 13 weekly sessions: an educational session, followed by 5 combined BF and PTNS sessions, 6 PTNS and a final combined session. Anorectal physiology and clinical outcomes were assessed throughout the program. For efficacy, patients were compared with BF only historical FI patients matched for age, parity, and severity of symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 12/13 (93%) patients completed the full program. Overall attendance rate was 93% (157/169 sessions). Patient comfort score with treatment was rated high at 9.8/10 (SD 0.7) for PTNS and 8.6/10 (SD 1.7) for the BF component. No major side effects were reported. A reduction of at least 50% in FI episodes/week was achieved by 58% of patients by visit 6, and 92% by visit 13. No physiology changes were evident immediately following PTNS compared with before, but pressure during sustained anal squeeze improved by the end of the treatment course. Comparing outcomes with historical matched controls, reductions in weekly FI episodes were more pronounced in the BF only group at visit 6, but not week 13. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, concurrent PTNS and anorectal biofeedback therapy has been shown to be feasible, comfortable, and low risk. The combined protocol is likely to be an effective treatment for FI, but future research could focus on optimizing patient selection.

The international anorectal physiology working group (IAPWG) recommendations: Standardized testing protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function.

BACKGROUND: This manuscript summarizes consensus reached by the International Anorectal Physiology Working Group (IAPWG) for the performance, terminology used, and interpretation of anorectal function testing including anorectal manometry (focused on high-resolution manometry), the rectal sensory test, and the balloon expulsion test. Based on these measurements, a classification system for disorders of anorectal function is proposed. METHODS: Twenty-nine working group members (clinicians/academics in the field of gastroenterology, coloproctology, and gastrointestinal physiology) were invited to six face-to-face and three remote meetings to derive consensus between 2014 and 2018. KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: The IAPWG protocol for the performance of anorectal function testing recommends a standardized sequence of maneuvers to test rectoanal reflexes, anal tone and contractility, rectoanal coordination, and rectal sensation. Major findings not seen in healthy controls defined by the classification are as follows: rectoanal areflexia, anal hypotension and hypocontractility, rectal hyposensitivity, and hypersensitivity. Minor and inconclusive findings that can be present in health and require additional information prior to diagnosis include anal hypertension and dyssynergia. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: This framework introduces the IAPWG protocol and the London classification for disorders of anorectal function based on objective physiological measurement. The use of a common language to describe results of diagnostic tests, standard operating procedures, and a consensus classification system is designed to bring much-needed standardization to these techniques.

Anorectal biofeedback: an effective therapy, but can we shorten the course to improve access to treatment?

BACKGROUND: Instrumented anorectal biofeedback (BF) improves symptoms and quality of life in patients with faecal incontinence and defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation. However, demand for BF greatly outweighs availability, so refinement of the BF protocol, in terms of the time and resources required, is of importance. Our aim was to evaluate the outcomes of an abbreviated BF protocol in patients with defecation disorder-associated chronic constipation and/or faecal incontinence compared to standard BF. METHODS: Data were collected from consecutive patients (n = 31; age 54 ± 15; 29 females; 61% functional constipation) undergoing an intentionally abbreviated BF protocol, and compared in a 1:2 ratio with 62 age, gender and functional anorectal disorder-matched control patients undergoing a standard BF. Outcomes included change in symptoms, physiology, patient satisfaction and quality of life. RESULTS: On intention to treat, patients in both protocols showed significant improvement in symptom scores and the magnitude did not differ between groups. Impact on quality of life, satisfaction and control over bowel movements improved in both protocols, but satisfaction improved to a greater extent in the standard BF protocol (p = 0.009). Physiological parameters were unchanged after BF apart from improvement in rectal sensation in the standard BF group compared to abbreviated BF (p ⩽ 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Abbreviated anorectal BF offered to patients travelling from far away was not different to a standard BF in providing substantial, at least short term, improvements in symptoms of constipation and faecal incontinence, quality of life and feeling of control over bowel movements. Refinement of the standard BF protocol according to individual patient phenotypes and desired outcomes warrants further study in order to maximize efficacy and improve access for patients.

Anorectal physiology in health: A randomized trial to determine the optimum catheter for the balloon expulsion test.

BACKGROUND: Anorectal manometry (ARM) and balloon expulsion test (BET) are pivotal in investigation of anorectal disorders. There is controversy, however, about normal values and optimum methodology for performing these tests. Our aims were to compare BET using three different balloons and to establish normal values for ARM and BET in health. METHODS: Forty-four female healthy subjects (mean age 56 ± 12 years) underwent ARM, followed by BET which was performed in a private toilet using three different catheters (party balloon, Foley catheter and a commercially available catheter) in a single-blinded randomized order. Outcome measures were time to balloon expulsion and comprehensive measures of anal sphincter function, the push maneuver and rectal sensation. KEY RESULTS: The Foley catheter took longer to expel compared to both party and commercial balloons (both pairwise P < 0.001) with a wider distribution of results (P < 0.001). Ten of 40 healthy subjects could not expel the Foley catheter within 120 seconds. On ARM, older age was associated with lower resting anal sphincter pressure (ρ = -0.3, P = 0.05) and lower anal squeeze pressure (ρ = -0.3, P = 0.05). Having at least one vaginal delivery (compared to none) was associated with lower anal squeeze pressures (P = 0.03) and a smaller difference between cough and squeeze pressures (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: A commercial balloon exhibited superior results in vivo compared to the Foley catheter without the concerns of latex allergy and quality control present with the use of a party balloon. Normal values for high-resolution water-perfused manometry have been established and an effect seen for age and parity.

Bowel Dysfunction in Spinal Cord Injury.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To evaluate and report current evidence regarding the management of bowel dysfunction in spinal cord injury. There is a paucity of high-quality large studies on which to base management advice. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent research has focused on defining the nature of symptomatology of bowel dysfunction in SCI and describing the effects on quality of life and social interactions. Technical aspects of colonoscopy have received attention, and aspects of understanding the pathophysiology in relation to both neural and non-neural dysfunction have been studied. There has been refinement and expansion of the pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment options for bowel dysfunction in SCI. Management of bowel dysfunction in SCI requires a comprehensive and individualized approach, encompassing lifestyle, toileting routine, stimulation, diet, medications, and surgery. Further high-quality research is required to inform best practice.

Expert consensus document: Advances in the evaluation of anorectal function.

Faecal incontinence and evacuation disorders are common, impair quality of life and incur substantial economic costs worldwide. As symptoms alone are poor predictors of underlying pathophysiology and aetiology, diagnostic tests of anorectal function could facilitate patient management in those cases that are refractory to conservative therapies. In the past decade, several major technological advances have improved our understanding of anorectal structure, coordination and sensorimotor function. This Consensus Statement provides the reader with an appraisal of the current indications, study performance characteristics, clinical utility, strengths and limitations of the most widely available tests of anorectal structure (ultrasonography and MRI) and function (anorectal manometry, neurophysiological investigations, rectal distension techniques and tests of evacuation, including defecography). Additionally, this article provides our consensus on the clinical relevance of these tests.