Clinical features and outcomes of adult idiopathic megarectum.

OBJECTIVE: Idiopathic megarectum is characterized by abnormal, pronounced rectal dilatation in the absence of identifiable organic pathology. Idiopathic megarectum is uncommon and under-recognized. This study aims to describe the clinical features and management of idiopathic megarectum. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken on patients diagnosed with idiopathic megarectum with or without idiopathic megacolon over a 14-year period until 2021. Patients were identified from the hospital's International Classification of Diseases codes, and pre-existing clinic patient databases. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, healthcare utilization and treatment history data were collected. RESULTS: Eight patients with idiopathic megarectum were identified; half of the patients were female, with the median age of symptom onset being 14 years (interquartile range [IQR] 9-24). The median rectal diameter measured was 11.5 cm (IQR 9.4-12.1). The most common presenting symptom was constipation, bloating and faecal incontinence. All patients required prior sustained periods of regular phosphate enemas and 88% were using ongoing oral aperients. Concomitant anxiety and or depression were found in 63% of patients and 25% were diagnosed with an intellectual disability. Healthcare utilization was high with a median of three emergency department presentations or ward admissions related to idiopathic megarectum per patient over the follow-up period; 38% of patients required surgical intervention during the period of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Idiopathic megarectum is uncommon and associated with significant physical and psychiatric morbidity and high healthcare utilization.

Pelvic floor behavioral treatment for fecal incontinence and constipation in quiescent inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Refractory bowel symptoms in quiescent inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are common but evidence for effective management is limited. We aimed to determine whether behavioral treatment, including pelvic floor muscle training, decreases the severity of functional bowel symptoms in patients with quiescent IBD. Secondary aims were to evaluate the treatment effect on quality of life, psychological well-being and pelvic floor muscle function. METHODS: This prospective study included IBD patients in remission with persistent symptoms of fecal incontinence or constipation who received up to six sessions of behavioral treatment at monthly intervals. The primary outcome was patient-rated symptom improvement on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = substantially worse, 7 = substantially better). Secondary outcomes included validated symptom scores, quality-of-life, psychological measures, and transperineal ultrasound assessment of pelvic floor muscle activity. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients (median age 38 years; 24 females; 18 ulcerative colitis, 13 Crohn's disease, 3 ileo-anal pouch) were included. Twenty-one of the 29 (72%) patients who completed treatment, or 21 of all 34 (62%) patients, reported moderate or substantial improvement (patient rating of 6 or 7). Symptom scores (p < .001), IBD-specific quality of life (p = .008) and illness perception scores (p = .003) significantly improved. General quality of life, and anxiety and depression scores, did not change significantly. Transperineal ultrasound pelvic floor measures did not correlate with patient-rating of symptom improvement. CONCLUSION: Significant symptomatic improvement occurred in a majority of patients with quiescent IBD. Behavioral treatment should be considered for patients with quiescent IBD and ongoing functional bowel symptoms of fecal incontinence, fecal urgency, or constipation.

Long-Term Outcome of Multidisciplinary Versus Standard Gastroenterologist Care for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Functional gastrointestinal disorders are common and costly to the healthcare system. In the Multidisciplinary Treatment of Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders study, we demonstrated that multidisciplinary care resulted in superior clinical and cost outcomes, when compared with standard gastroenterologist-only care at end of treatment. In this study we evaluate the longer-term outcomes. METHODS: In a single-center, pragmatic trial patients with Rome IV criteria-defined functional gastrointestinal disorders were randomized 1:2 to a gastroenterologist-only standard care vs a multidisciplinary clinic comprising gastroenterologists, dietitians, gut hypnotherapists, psychiatrists, and biofeedback physiotherapists. Outcomes in this study were assessed 12 months after the end of treatment. Global symptom improvement was assessed by using a 5-point Likert scale. Symptoms, specific disorder status, psychological state, quality of life, and cost were additional outcomes. A modified intention-to-treat analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of 188 randomized patients, 143 (46 standard care, 97 multidisciplinary) formed the longer-term modified intention-to-treat analysis. Sixty-two percent of multidisciplinary clinic patients saw allied clinicians. Sixty-five percent (30/46) standard care versus 76% (74/97) multidisciplinary clinic patients achieved global symptom improvement 12 months after end of treatment (P = .17), whereas 20% (9/46) versus 37% (36/97) rated their symptoms as "5/5 much better" (P = .04). A ≥50-point reduction in Irritable Bowel Syndrome Severity Scoring System occurred in 38% versus 66% (P = .02), respectively, for irritable bowel syndrome patients. Anxiety and depression were greater in the standard care than multidisciplinary clinic (12 vs 10, P = .19), and quality of life was lower in standard care than the multidisciplinary clinic (0.75 vs 0.77, P =·.03). An incremental cost-effectivness ratio found that for every additional 3555AUD spent in the multidisciplinary clinic, a further quality-adjusted life year was gained. CONCLUSIONS: Twelve months after the completion of treatment, integrated multidisciplinary clinical care achieved a greater proportion of patients with improvement of symptoms, psychological state, quality of life, and cost, compared with gastroenterologist-only care. CLINICAL TRIALS: gov: number NCT03078634.

Determinants of long-term function and general well-being in patients with an ileoanal pouch.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Fecal incontinence and/or evacuation difficulty are common after ileoanal pouch surgery. This study aimed to determine whether the development of these symptoms can be predicted so that preventive measures might be instituted. METHODS: A consecutive series of 46 patients with ulcerative colitis (median age at surgery, 41 years; 50% female) and a functioning pouch for a duration ≥12 months was included. Assessment utilized medical record review and questionnaires on pre- and postoperative bowel function, quality of life, and psychological well-being. Pouch function was assessed by the Colorectal Functional Outcome score (0 = no impairment, 100 = worst impairment). Good pouch function was defined as a score ≤24. RESULTS: Fecal incontinence occurred in 67% preoperatively and 54% postoperatively; evacuation difficulty occurred in 65% and preoperatively and 85% postoperatively. The postoperative median Colorectal Functional Outcome score was 20 (range 2-74), with 44% of patients >24 (poor pouch function). Preoperative nocturnal fecal incontinence (odds ratio [OR] 4.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-19.4, P = 0.02) and pouchitis (OR 5.41, 95% CI 1.2-23.7, P = 0.02) were associated with poor pouch function after multivariable regression analysis. Postoperative satisfaction, psychological well-being, and quality of life were significantly better in those with good pouch function, while poor sleep, impaired work, and sexual dysfunction were independently associated with poor pouch function. CONCLUSIONS: Functional bowel symptoms are common before and after pouch surgery and are associated with the impairment of patient-reported outcomes. Preoperative nocturnal fecal incontinence predicts poor pouch function. Therapeutic focus on continence, bowel evacuation, psychological well-being, and quality of life should begin before surgery.

Standard gastroenterologist versus multidisciplinary treatment for functional gastrointestinal disorders (MANTRA): an open-label, single-centre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders are common and costly to the health-care system. Most specialist care is provided by a gastroenterologist, but only a minority of patients have improvement in symptoms. Although they have proven to be effective, psychological, behavioural, and dietary therapies are not provided routinely. We aimed to compare the outcome of gastroenterologist-only standard care with multidisciplinary care. METHODS: In an open-label, single-centre, pragmatic trial, consecutive new referrals of eligible patients aged 18-80 years with Rome IV criteria-defined functional gastrointestinal disorders were randomly assigned (1:2) to receive gastroenterologist-only standard care or multidisciplinary clinic care. The multidisciplinary clinic included gastroenterologists, dietitians, gut-focused hypnotherapists, psychiatrists, and behavioural (biofeedback) physiotherapists. Randomisation was stratified by Rome IV disorder and whether referred from gastroenterology or colorectal clinic. Outcomes were assessed at clinic discharge or 9 months after the initial visit. The primary outcome was a score of 4 (slightly better) or 5 (much better) on a 5-point Likert scale assessing global symptom improvement. Modified intention-to-treat analysis included all patients who attended at least one clinic visit and who had answered the primary outcome question. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03078634. FINDINGS: Between March 16, 2017, and May 10, 2018, 1632 patients referred to the hospital gastrointestinal clinics were screened, of whom 442 were eligible for a screening telephone call and 188 were randomly assigned to receive either standard care (n=65) or multidisciplinary care (n=123). 144 patients formed the modified intention-to-treat analysis (n=46 in the standard-care group and n=98 in the multidisciplinary-care group), 90 (63%) of whom were women. 61 (62%) of 98 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group patients saw allied clinicians. 26 (57%) patients in the standard-care group and 82 (84%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had global symptom improvement (risk ratio 1·50 [95% CI 1·13-1·93]; p=0·00045). 29 (63%) patients in the standard-care group and 81 (83%) patients in the multidisciplinary-care group had adequate relief of symptoms in the past 7 days (p=0·010). Patients in the multidisciplinary-care group were more likely to experience a 50% or higher reduction in all Gastrointestinal Symptom Severity Index symptom clusters than were patients in the standard-care group. Of the patients with irritable bowel syndrome, a 50-point or higher reduction in IBS-SSS occurred in 10 (38%) of 26 patients in the standard care group compared with 39 (66%) of 59 patients in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·017). Of the patients with functional dyspepsia, a 50% reduction in the Nepean Dyspepsia Index was noted in three (11%) of 11 patients in the standard-care group and in 13 (46%) of 28 in the multidisciplinary-care group (p=0·47). After treatment, the median HADS scores were higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (13 [8-20] vs 10 [6-16]; p=0·096) and the median EQ-5D-5L quality of life visual analogue scale was lower in the standard-care group compared with the multidisciplinary-care group (70 [IQR 50-80] vs 75 [65-85]; p=0·0087). The eight SF-36 scales did not differ between the groups at discharge. After treatment, median Somatic Symptom Scale-8 score was higher in the standard-care group than in the multidisciplinary-care group (10 [IQR 7-7] vs 9 [5-13]; p=0·082). Cost per successful outcome was higher in the standard-care group than the multidisciplinary-care group. INTERPRETATION: Integrated multidisciplinary clinical care appears to be superior to gastroenterologist-only care in relation to symptoms, specific functional disorders, psychological state, quality of life, and cost of care for the treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Consideration should be given to providing multidisciplinary care for patients with a functional gastrointestinal disorder. FUNDING: None.

Systematic review: Pelvic floor muscle training for functional bowel symptoms in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Large bowel functional symptoms are common in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) who are in disease remission. The efficacy of pelvic floor muscle training for symptoms of evacuation difficulty or fecal incontinence is well established in patients without organic bowel disease but is unknown in these patients. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the published evidence in this group of patients. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted of articles evaluating pelvic floor muscle training, with or without biofeedback, to improve bowel function in patients with quiescent IBD, including those with an ileoanal pouch. The outcome of interest was improved bowel function measured by bowel diary, patient report, or validated questionnaire in randomized controlled studies, cohort studies, or case series. RESULTS: Two randomized controlled trials, four retrospective case series, and one prospective study met eligibility criteria. Pelvic floor muscle training for patients with quiescent IBD improved symptoms in 51 of 76 (68%) patients with evacuation difficulty and 20 of 25 (80%) patients with fecal incontinence. Pelvic floor muscle training for patients with an ileoanal pouch, prior to stoma closure, did not appear to reduce the risk or severity of fecal incontinence following stoma closure. Studies were limited by small numbers, study design, methodological quality, and lack of long-term follow-up. CONCLUSION: Pelvic floor muscle training appears to be of therapeutic value in some patients with quiescent IBD and evacuation difficulty or fecal incontinence. The effectiveness of this approach warrants further investigation.

Defining Optimal Care for Functional Gut Disorders - Multi-Disciplinary Versus Standard Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) are the commonest reason for gastroenterological consultation, with patients usually seen by a specialist working in isolation. There is a wealth of evidence testifying to the benefit provided by dieticians, behavioral therapists, hypnotherapists and psychotherapists in treating these conditions, yet they rarely form a part of the therapeutic team, and these treatment modalities are rarely offered as part of the therapeutic management. There has been little examination of different models of care for FGIDs. We hypothesize that multi-disciplinary integrated care is superior to standard specialist-based care in the treatment of functional gut disorders. METHODS: The "MANTRA" (Multidisciplinary Treatment for Functional Gut Disorders) study compares comprehensive multi-disciplinary outpatient care with standard hospital outpatient care. Consecutive new referrals to the gastroenterology and colorectal outpatient clinics of a single secondary and tertiary care hospital of patients with an FGID, defined by the Rome IV criteria, will be included. Patients will be prospectively randomized 2:1 to multi-disciplinary (gastroenterologist, gut-hypnotherapist, psychiatrist, behavioral therapist ('biofeedback') and dietician) or standard care (gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon). Patients are assessed up to 12 months after completing treatment. The primary outcome is an improvement on a global assessment scale at the end of treatment. Symptoms, quality of life, psychological well-being, and healthcare costs are secondary outcome measures. DISCUSSION: There have been few studies examining how best to deliver care for functional gut disorders. The MANTRA study will define the clinical and cost benefits of two different models of care for these highly prevalent disorders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.govNCT03078634 Registered on Clinicaltrials.gov, completed recruitment, registered on March 13th 2017. Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval has been received by the St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne human research ethics committee (HREC-A 138/16). The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. Protocol version 1.2.

Outcome of hospital outpatient treatment of functional gastrointestinal disorders.

BACKGROUND: Functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) are the commonest conditions observed in gastrointestinal (GI) practice, yet the outcomes of their outpatient care are not known. AIM: To evaluate the outcome for patients with FGID attending a specialist GI clinic. METHODS: Consecutive, newly referred patients with a FGID attending a specialist GI clinic in a tertiary hospital, over a 1-year period were reviewed and then completed a phone survey to assess current symptoms. RESULTS: Of 102 patients, 57% had irritable bowel syndrome, 28% functional dyspepsia and 15% other functional disorders. At interview, a median of 402 days after the last consultation 38% expressed symptom improvement, but 64% remained concerned about their condition despite 62% having been reassured. After treatment, 50% of employed patients took time off work because of gut symptoms. Functional dyspepsia patients were less likely to be symptomatically improved than other FGID (21% vs 45%, P = 0.02). Patients given a diet low in fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols were more likely than others to achieve symptom improvement (53% vs 31%, P = 0.03); PPI-treated patients were less likely to experience improvement (22% vs 44%, P = 0.05); other treatments did not predict outcome. Number of visits, seniority of clinician, duration of care and comorbidities did not predict outcome. CONCLUSION: One year after attending a specialist GI clinic a minority of patients with FGID were symptomatically improved. Failure to benefit by many patients may relate to the nature of patients and conditions being treated or the limited nature and range of treatments offered. Different models of care, including more diverse multidisciplinary models, should be explored.

Gut-Directed Pelvic Floor Behavioral Treatment for Fecal Incontinence and Constipation in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) often experience functional bowel symptoms despite achieving disease remission. Although behavioral treatment (bowel and pelvic floor muscle retraining) is effective for managing constipation or fecal incontinence in non-IBD patients, there is limited evidence for its efficacy in patients with quiescent inflammatory bowel disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of gut-directed behavioral treatment, including pelvic floor muscle training, for symptoms of constipation or fecal incontinence in patients with IBD in disease remission. METHODS: The outcome of consecutive patients with IBD in remission and symptoms of constipation or fecal incontinence was evaluated. Patients referred to a multidisciplinary gastroenterology clinic underwent gut-directed behavioral treatment, including pelvic floor muscle training. The primary outcome was patient-reported rating of change in symptoms on a 7-point Likert scale at the completion of treatment. RESULTS: Forty IBD patients (median age, 35 years; 80% female; 24 Crohn's disease [CD], 12 ulcerative colitis [UC], 4 UC with ileoanal pouch) with ongoing symptoms of constipation (55%) or fecal incontinence (45%), despite drug therapy, were included. The median symptom duration at referral was 2 years. Thirty-five (87%) completed treatment with a median of 2 sessions. Improvement of "6 = much better" or "7 = very much better" was reported by 77% (17/22) with fecal incontinence and 83% (15/18) with constipation. Improvement occurred irrespective of IBD diagnosis, previous perianal fistulae, colorectal surgery, presence of an ileoanal pouch, or past obstetric trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral treatment effectively improves functional gut symptoms in a large majority of patients who are in IBD disease remission and who have not responded to drug therapy. 10.1093/ibd/izy344_video1 izy344.video1 5968879349001.

A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial of placement of the artificial bowel sphincter (Acticon Neosphincter) for the control of fecal incontinence.

BACKGROUND: Severe fecal incontinence remains a disabling condition for the patient and a major therapeutic challenge for the physician. A series of observational studies have indicated that placement of an artificial bowel sphincter is associated with marked improvement of continence and quality of life. We have performed a prospective, randomized, controlled trial to evaluate the effect of placement of an artificial bowel sphincter (Acticon Neosphincter) on continence and quality of life in a group of severely incontinent adults. METHODS: Fourteen adults (male:female, 1:13; age range, 44-75 years) were randomized to placement of the artificial bowel sphincter or to a program of supportive care and were followed for six months from operation or entry into the study. The principal outcome measure was the level of continence, measured with the Cleveland Continence Score, which provides a scale from 0 to 20, representing perfect control through to total incontinence. Secondary outcome measures were perioperative and late complications in the artificial bowel sphincter group, and the changes in quality of life in both groups. RESULTS: In the control group, the Cleveland Continence Score was not significantly altered, with an initial value of 17.1 +/- 2.3 and a final value of 14.3 +/- 4.6 at six months. The artificial bowel sphincter group showed a highly significant improvement, changing from 19.0 +/- 1.2 before placement to 4.8 +/- 4.0 at six months after placement. One patient in the artificial bowel sphincter group had failure of healing of the perineal wound and explantation of the device (14 percent explantation rate). There were two other significant perioperative events of recurring fecal impaction initially after placement in one patient and additional suturing of the perineal wound in another. There were major improvements in the quality of life for all measures in the artificial bowel sphincter group. There was significant improvement in all eight subscales of the Medical Outcome Study Short Form-36 measures. The American Medical Systems Quality of Life score was raised from 39 +/- 6 to 83 +/- 14 and the Beck Depression Inventory showed reduction from a level of mild depression (10.8 +/- 9.3) to a normal value (6.8 +/- 8.7). No significant changes in any of the quality of life measures occurred for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Through a prospective, randomized trial format, we have shown that placement of an artificial bowel sphincter is safe and effective when compared with supportive care alone. Perioperative and late problems are likely to continue to occur and between 15 percent and 30 percent of patients may require permanent explantation. For the remainder, the device is easy and discrete to use, highly effective in achieving continence, and able to generate a major improvement in the quality of life.