Pelvic floor procedures produce no consistent changes in anatomy or physiology

A systematic review of the literature reporting on randomised controlled trials comparing treatments for faecal incontinence in adults

AIM

To perform a review of the literature reporting on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for faecal incontinence (FI) in adults.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded and Cochrane was performed in order to identify RCTs reporting on treatments for FI.

RESULTS

The review included 60 RCTs reporting on 4838 patients with a mean age ranging from 36.8 to 88 years. From the included RCTs, 32 did not identify a significant difference between the treatments compared. Contradictory results were identified in RCTs comparing percutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation and transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation versus sham stimulation, biofeedback-pelvic floor muscle training (BF-PFMT) versus PFMT, and between bulking agents such as PTQ^TM versus Durasphere^®. In two separate RCTs, combination treatment of amplitude-modulated medium frequency stimulation and electromyography-biofeedback (EMG-BF), was noted to be superior to EMG-BF and low-frequency electrical stimulation alone. Combination of non-surgical treatments such as BF with sphincteroplasty significantly improved continence scores compared to sphincteroplasty alone. Surgical treatments were associated with higher rates of serious adverse events compared to non-surgical interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The current evidence has not identified significant differences between treatments for FI, and where differences were identified, the results were contradictory between RCTs.

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.

Manometric comparison of anorectal function after posterior vaginal compartment repair with and without mesh

Background:

Although repair augmented with mesh has been proved its priority in anatomical and functional recovery after anterior compartment reconstruction, the data about posterior compartment are scarce. The aim of this study was to compare bowel functional outcome of posterior vaginal compartment repair with and without mesh in patients with pelvic organ prolapse (POP).

Methods:

This was a prospective, double-blind, clinical pilot study of 22 postmenopausal women with symptomatic POP (overall POP-quantification [POP-Q] Stage III-IV) who underwent total pelvic floor reconstruction. Patients were grouped according to the use of mesh for posterior vaginal compartment repair: A mesh group and a nonmesh group. POP-Q stage, the pelvic floor impact questionnaire short form-7 (PFIQ-7) and anorectal manometry were evaluated before and 3 months after surgery. Anatomical success was defined as POP-Q Stage II or less. A t-test was used to compare preoperative with postoperative data in the two groups.

Results:

Totally, 17 (71%) were available for the follow-up. POP-Q measurements improved significantly compared to baseline (P < 0.05) in both groups. No recurrence was observed. Subjects in both groups reported improvement in pelvic floor symptoms, and there was no significant difference in the PFIQ-7 score between groups at follow-up (P > 0.05). Compared with baseline, the nonmesh group exhibited a statistically significant decrease in anal residual pressure, a significant increase in the anorectal pressure difference during bowel movement, and a reduced rate of dyssynergia defecation pattern (P < 0.05).

Conclusions:

Provided there is sufficient support for the anterior wall and apex of vagina with mesh, posterior compartment repair without mesh may be as effective as repair with mesh for anatomical recovery while providing better anorectal motor function.

Treatment of fecal incontinence: state of the science summary for the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases workshop

This is the second of a two-part summary of a National Institutes of Health conference on fecal incontinence (FI) that summarizes current treatments and identifies research priorities. Conservative medical management consisting of patient education, fiber supplements or antidiarrheals, behavioral techniques such as scheduled toileting, and pelvic floor exercises restores continence in up to 25% of patients. Biofeedback, often recommended as first-line treatment after conservative management fails, produces satisfaction with treatment in up to 76% and continence in 55%; however, outcomes depend on the skill of the therapist, and some trials are less favorable. Electrical stimulation of the anal mucosa is ineffective, but continuous electrical pulsing of sacral nerves produces a ≥50% reduction in FI frequency in a median 73% of patients. Tibial nerve electrical stimulation with needle electrodes is promising but remains unproven. Sphincteroplasty produces short-term clinical improvement in a median 67%, but 5-year outcomes are poor. Injecting an inert bulking agent around the anal canal led to ≥50% reductions of FI in up to 53% of patients. Colostomy is used as a last resort because of adverse effects on quality of life. Several new devices are under investigation but not yet approved. FI researchers identify the following priorities for future research: (1) trials comparing the effectiveness, safety, and cost of current therapies; (2) studies addressing barriers to consulting for care; and (3) translational research on regenerative medicine. Unmet patient needs include FI in special populations (e.g., neurological disorders and nursing home residents) and improvements in behavioral treatments.

Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a debilitating problem with significant medical, social and economic implications. Treatment options include conservative, non-operative interventions (for example pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, drugs) and surgical procedures. A surgical procedure may be aimed at correcting an obvious mechanical defect, or augmenting a functionally deficient but structurally intact sphincter complex.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical techniques for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults who do not have rectal prolapse. Our aim was firstly to compare surgical management with non-surgical management and secondly, to compare the various surgical techniques.

SEARCH METHODS

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 6 March 2013), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (searched 6 March 2013), CENTRAL (2013, issue 1) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 6 March 2013) were undertaken. The British Journal of Surgery (1 January 1995 to 6 March 2013), Colorectal Diseases (1 January 2000 to 6 March 2013) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (1 January 1995 to 6 March 2013) were specifically handsearched. The proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland annual meetings held from 1999 to 2012 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult faecal incontinence (other than surgery for rectal prolapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected studies from the literature, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The three primary outcome measures were change or deterioration in incontinence, failure to achieve full continence, and the presence of faecal urgency.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included with a total sample size of 264 participants. Two trials included a group managed non-surgically. One trial compared levatorplasty with anal plug electrostimulation and one compared an artificial bowel sphincter with best supportive care. The artificial bowel sphincter resulted in significant improvements in at least one primary outcome but the numbers were small. The other trial showed no difference in the primary outcome measures.Seven trials compared different surgical interventions. These included anterior levatorplasty versus postanal repair, anterior levatorplasty versus total pelvic floor repair, total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, end to end versus overlap sphincter repair, overlap repair with or without a defunctioning stoma or with or without biofeedback, and total pelvic floor repair versus repair plus internal sphincter plication and neosphincter formation versus total pelvic floor repair. Sacral nerve stimulation and injectables are considered in separate Cochrane reviews. Only one comparison had more than one trial (total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, 44 participants) and no trial showed any difference in primary outcome measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review is striking for the lack of high quality randomised controlled trials on faecal incontinence surgery that have been carried out in the last 10 years. Those trials that have been carried out have focused on sacral neuromodulation and injectable bulking agents, both reported in separate reviews. The continued small number of relevant trials identified together with their small sample sizes and other methodological weaknesses limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Larger rigorous trials are still needed. However, it should be recognised that the optimal treatment regime may be a complex combination of various surgical and non-surgical therapies.

Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a debilitating problem with significant medical, social and economic implications. Treatment options include conservative, non-operative interventions (e.g. pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, drugs) and surgical procedures. A surgical procedure may be aimed at correcting an obvious mechanical defect, or augmenting a functionally deficient but structurally intact sphincter complex.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical techniques for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults who do not have rectal prolapse. Our aim was firstly to compare surgical management with non-surgical management and secondly, to compare the various surgical techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Electronic searches of the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 26 November 2009), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group Specialised Register (searched 26 November 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 30 June 2009) were undertaken. The British Journal of Surgery (1 January 1995 to 30 June 2009) Colorectal Diseases (1 January 2000 to 30 June 2009) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (1 January 1995 to 30 June 2009) were specifically handsearched. The proceedings of the UK Association of Coloproctology meeting held from 1999 to 2009 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult faecal incontinence (other than surgery for rectal prolapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three reviewers independently selected studies from the literature, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The three primary outcome measures were: change or deterioration in incontinence, failure to achieve full continence, and the presence of faecal urgency.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen trials were included with a total sample size of 440 participants. Two trials included a group managed non-surgically. One trial compared levator with anal plug electrostimulation and one compared artificial bowel sphincter with best supportive care. The artificial bowel sphincter resulted in significant improvements in at least one primary outcome but numbers were small. The other trial showed no difference in primary outcome measures.Eleven trials compared different surgical interventions. These included anterior levatorplasty versus postanal repair, anterior levatorplasty versus total pelvic floor repair, total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, end to end versus overlap sphincter repair, overlap repair with or without a defunctioning stoma or with or without biofeedback, injection of silicone, hydrogel, physiological saline, carbon beads or collagen bulking agents, total pelvic floor repair versus repair plus internal sphincter plication and neosphincter formation versus total pelvic floor repair. Sacral nerve stimulation and injectables are also considered in separate Cochrane reviews. Only one comparison had more than one trial (total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, 44 participants) and no trial showed any difference in primary outcome measures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite more studies being included in this update, the continued small number of relevant trials identified together with their small sample sizes and other methodological weaknesses continue to limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Larger rigorous trials are still needed. However, it should be recognised that the optimal treatment regime may be a complex combination of various surgical and non-surgical therapies.

Interest of retro-anal levator plate myorrhaphy in selected cases of descending perineum syndrome with positive anti-sagging test

Background

Levator plate sagging (LPS), usually called descending perineum syndrome, is one of the main defects encountered in perineology. This defect is classically associated with colo-proctologic functional troubles (dyschesia and anal incontinence) but can also induce perineodynia, gynaecological and lower urinary tract symptoms.

Methods

A retrospective case series of nine female patients (mean age: 44.3) underwent an isolated retro-anal levator plate myorrhaphy (RLPM) to treat symptomatic LPS confirmed by rectal examination and/or Perineocaliper^®. An anti-sagging test (support of the posterior perineum) must significantly improve the symptoms that were resistant to conservative treatment. The effect of the procedure on the symptoms of the 3 axes of the perineum (urological, colo-proctologic and gynecological) and on perineodynia was evaluated during a follow up consultation more than 9 months after surgery. The effect of RLPM on the position of the anal margin and on the levator plate angle was studied using rectal examination, Perineocaliper^® and retro-anal ultrasound.

Results

Before surgery, anti-sagging tests were positive for dyschesia, urinary urgency and pain. After a mean follow-up of 16.1 months, RLPM resolved or improved 2/2 cases of stress urinary incontinence, 3/5 of urinary urgency, 3/4 of dysuria, 3/3 of anal incontinence, 7/8 of dyschesia, 3/4 of cystocele, 4/5 of rectocele, 5/8 of dyspareunia and 6/7 of perineodynia. Rectal examination showed a complete suppression of sagging in 4 patients and an improvement in the 5 others. The mean reduction of perineal descent was 1.08 cm (extremes: 0–1.5). Using retro-anal ultrasound of the levator plate, the mean reduction of sagging was 12.67 degrees (extremes: 1 – 21).

Conclusion

Anti-sagging tests can be used before surgery to simulate the effect of RLPM. This surgical procedure seems to improve stress urinary incontinence, frequency, nocturia, urgency, dysuria, anal incontinence, dyschesia, dyspareunia, perineodynia, cystocele and rectocele. These results must be confirmed by a larger case series.

Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a debilitating problem with significant medical, social and economic implications. Treatment options include conservative, non-surgical interventions (e.g. pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, drugs, sacral nerve stimulation) and surgical procedures. A surgical procedure may be aimed at correcting an obvious mechanical defect, or augmenting a functionally deficient but structurally intact sphincter complex or replace an absent/non-functioning sphincter.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical techniques for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults who do not have rectal prolapse. Our aim was firstly to compare surgical management with non-surgical management and secondly, to compare the various surgical techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Trials Register (31 January 2006), the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group trials register (31 January 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2006, Issue 1), PubMed (1 January 1950 to 31 January 2006) and EMBASE (1 January 1998 to 31 January 2006) were undertaken. The British Journal of Surgery (January 1995 to May 2006) Colorectal Diseases (January 2000-May 2006) and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (January 1995 to May 2006) were specifically handsearched. The proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology meeting held from 1999 to 2006 were perused. Reference lists of all relevant articles were searched for further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult faecal incontinence (other than surgery for rectal prolapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature searches, assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials and extracted data. The three primary outcome measures were: change or deterioration in incontinence, failure to achieve full continence, and the presence of faecal urgency.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were included with a total sample size of 264 participants. Two trials included a group managed non-surgically. One trial compared levatorplasty with anal plug stimulation, one compared artificial bowel sphincter with best supportive care; numbers were small in both trials. The artificial bowel sphincter insertion was followed by significant improvements in at least one primary outcome but with high rates of significant morbidity. Seven studies compared different surgical interventions. These included anterior levatorplasty versus postanal repair, anterior levatorplasty versus total pelvic floor repair, total pelvic floor versus postanal repair, end to end versus overlap sphincter repair, overlap repair with or without a defunctioning stoma or with or without biofeedback, total pelvic floor repair versus repair plus internal sphincter plication and neosphincter formation versus total pelvic floor repair. Only one comparison had more that one trial (total pelvic floor versus postanal repair-44 participants) and no comparison showed any statistically significant difference in primary outcome measures, with wide confidence intervals.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite more studies being included in this update, the continued small number of relevant trials identified together with their small sample sizes and other methodological weaknesses continue to limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Larger rigorous trials are still needed. However, it should be recognised that the optimal treatment regime may be a complex combination of various surgical and non-surgical therapies.

Faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a life style-limiting condition with multiple aetiologies. Surgical cure is not often possible.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A review of the literature was undertaken using Medline, Cochrane database and standard textbooks. Advanced imaging techniques now inform the treatment algorithm and objectively assess success. The long-term outcome of anal surgery is uncertain. Modern approaches favour conservative measures, such as biofeedback, and less invasive surgical procedures. Stoma formation is a definitive option for some patients.

CONCLUSION

Current treatment of faecal incontinence is evolving from a sphincter-focused view to a more holistic one, recognizing the influence of the pelvic floor and psyche in maintaining continence. Modern imaging modalities direct treatment strategies.

Bowel, bladder and sexual function in women undergoing laparoscopic posterior compartment repair in the presence of apical or anterior compartment dysfunction

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to analyse the functional outcome of women undergoing a laparoscopic posterior compartment repair in the presence of anterior or apical compartment dysfunction.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Forty women, median age 65 years (41-78), with symptoms of genital prolapse 31 (78%), urinary dysfunction 32 (80%) and bowel dysfunction 40 (100%), underwent laparoscopic posterior compartment repair in conjunction with an anterior compartment repair. Pre-operative and postoperative bowel and bladder function was prospectively assessed with a Wexner continence score, Vienna constipation score and a urinary dysfunction score. Twenty-eight (70%) and 24 patients (60%) had pre-operative urodynamics and anorectal manometry. Post-operatively all women were also assessed with a Watt's sexual dysfunction score and a linear analogue patient satisfaction score. Twelve women (30%) had postoperative anal manometry.

RESULTS

At 20 months median follow-up, 30 (97%), 20 (62%) and 12 (31%) women reported improvement in their prolapse, urinary and bowel symptoms, respectively. Post-operatively, one woman reported denovo faecal incontinence, four worsening obstructive defecation and three denovo urinary dysfunction. Nine women (35%) reported denovo dyspareunia. The mean time to clinical deterioration following surgery was 11 months. Bowel function improvement was the only factor to significantly correlate with postoperative patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The functional outcome of laparoscopic posterior compartment repair in the presence of anterior compartment dysfunction is disappointing. Preoperative counselling is important to ensure that patients have reasonable and realistic expectations from repair surgery, and an understanding that anatomical improvement might not be followed by long-term functional improvement.

Selecting an outcome measure for evaluating treatment in fecal incontinence

PURPOSE

Various outcome measures exist to evaluate treatment in fecal incontinence, including descriptive, severity (fecal incontinence scoring systems), and impact (quality-of-life questionnaires) and diagnostic measures. We studied associations between changes after treatment for a number of outcome measures and compared them to patients' subjective perception of relief.

METHODS

We analyzed data of 66 patients (92 percent female; mean age, 62 years) (Vaizey score, Wexner score, two impact scales, utility, resting pressure, and maximal incremental squeeze pressure) at baseline and after physiotherapy. In a standardized interview by phone, we asked patients to compare their situation before and after treatment. Correlations between changes in outcome measures were calculated. These changes were compared with patients' subjective perception.

RESULTS

There was a high correlation between the changes in the Vaizey and the Wexner scores (r = 0.94, P < 0.01). Changes in Vaizey and Wexner scores correlated moderately with changes in maximum incremental squeeze pressure (r = -0.29, -0.30, both P < 0.05). Changes in utility and resting pressure were not correlated with changes in any of the other measurements (all r values between -0.086 and 0.18). Average severity scores (Vaizey and Wexner) were 1 point lower for patients who rated their situation as worse or equal (62 percent), 4 points lower for patients who reported their situation to be better (21 percent), and 9 points lower in patients who rated their situation much better (17 percent) (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Severity measures are best related to patients' subjective perception of relief.

Perineal puborectalis sling operation for fecal incontinence: preliminary report

PURPOSE

This study was designed to evaluate the safety efficacy, and impact on quality of life of the perineal puborectalis sling operation for fecal incontinence.

METHODS

Since August 2001, we performed the perineal puborectalis sling operation on eight patients with idiopathic fecal incontinence. A specially designed polyester mesh sling was introduced along the puborectalis muscle, from a posterior perianal incision, running to a small suprapubic incision. The ends were tied together with moderate tension. Patients were evaluated with the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, the Cleveland Clinic Score of Incontinence, and the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale. Manometry and defecography were performed before and six months after the operation.

RESULTS

Eight patients (7 females; mean age, 63 (range, 44-77) years) were evaluated. A wound infection developed in one patient, which subsided with antibiotics. A rectal ulcer developed in one patient, necessitating sling removal. In the remaining seven patients, the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index improved from 27 to 9, and the Cleveland Clinic Score of Incontinence improved from 13 to 5 (P < 0.05). All parameters in the Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale improved: lifestyle from 2.1 to 3.6; coping/behavior from 1.5 to 3.4; depression/self perception from 2.3 to 3.7; and embarrassment from 2 to 3.6 (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found between preoperative and postoperative maximum resting pressure and maximum squeeze pressure. However, the median anorectal angle on defecography after the operation was significantly reduced (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the perineal puborectalis sling operation is technically feasible, with low morbidity, and can be an effective procedure for idiopathic fecal incontinence.

Review article: the management of pelvic floor disorders

Anorectal disorders, such as faecal incontinence, defecation difficulty and conditions associated with anorectal pain, are commonly encountered in the practices of gastroenterologists, urogynaecologists and colorectal surgeons. The evaluation of these disorders has been very much improved by the development and wider availability of diagnostic tests, such as manometry, endo-anal ultrasound, static and dynamic pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and electromyography. After briefly reviewing the normal anatomy and physiology of the anorectum, the pathophysiology and diagnostic approaches to faecal incontinence, defecation disorders and functional anorectal pain are discussed. Until recently, the management of these disorders has been largely anecdotal. However, our therapeutic armamentarium has been expanded by pharmacological agents, such as nitrates, calcium channel blockers and botulinum toxin, as well as the development of novel techniques, such as sacral nerve stimulation. These and other pharmacological, behavioural and surgical approaches are reviewed with respect to the robustness of evidence to support their efficacy in patients with these disorders.

Treatment of Fecal Incontinence

Fecal incontinence is a symptom of many disorders that can affect the nerves and muscles controlling defecation; it is not just due to exceptionally voluminous diarrhea. Underlying problems should be identified and treated, because that may improve incontinence. If treatment of the underlying problem does not correct incontinence, several approaches can be employed successfully. General approaches include stimulation of defecation at intervals to empty the rectum under supervised conditions; treatment of diarrhea, if present; addressing coexisting psychologic problems, such as depression; use of continence aids, such as adult diapers; and perineal skin care to prevent skin breakdown. Drug therapy includes use of constipating drugs, such as loperamide or diphenoxylate, that can impede the gastrocolic reflex, thereby limiting rectal filling and the likelihood of incontinence. Biofeedback training is useful in patients with some ability to sense rectal distention and to contract the external anal sphincter; instrumental learning using manometric or electromyographic biofeedback can be used to reinforce the rectoanal contractile response to rectal distention. Improvement in continence has been noted in up to 70% of suitable candidates with a single biofeedback training session. Patients with external anal sphincter disruption due to childbirth injury or other trauma may benefit from direct external anal sphincter repair (sphincteroplasty). In others, tightening up the anal canal by encirclement with nonabsorbable mesh (Thiersch procedure), perianal injection of fat, collagen, or synthetic gel, or radiofrequency electrical energy (Stretta procedure) may provide some palliation. Creation of a new sphincter mechanism by muscle transposition and encirclement of the anal canal is another approach that has been improved by use of electrical stimulators to keep the neosphincter contracted. Artificial anal sphincters patterned after artificial urinary sphincters have met with some success, but local infection remains problematic. When all else fails, fecal diversion (ileostomy, colostomy) can be effective in rehabilitating patients.

Anterior anal sphincter repair: results in a district general hospital

OBJECTIVE

Previous series have evaluated the overlapping anterior anal sphincter repair, but with short-term follow-up and a wide range of results. We assessed our results of the anterior sphincter repair in patients with faecal incontinence.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective study of 20 patients who underwent an anterior anal sphincter repair between October 1994 and July 1999. In 12 of the patients, a polypropylene mesh was inserted in the repair to act as re-inforcement. Pre-operatively, all patients had an anterior anal sphincter defect diagnosed with endo-anal ultrasound. Clinical evaluation included the patient's assessment of improvement and the Cleveland Clinic Continence Score before and after surgery. Manometric studies were performed pre-operatively and a median time of 11.5 mouths postoperatively.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 13 months (range, 3-61 months), 16 out of 20 (80%) patients said that surgery had improved their symptoms. There was a significant improvement in the continence score from 14 (range, 4-15) before operation to 7 (range, 0-15) after operation (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in mean anal sphincter length, mean resting and maximum squeeze anal canal pressures before and after surgery. Similar results were obtained in patients with and without mesh re-inforcement.

CONCLUSIONS

In our institution, the overlapping anterior anal sphincter repair is successful in relieving symptoms in patients with faecal incontinence due to an anterior sphincter defect. This improvement, however, is not associated with any significant changes in anorectal manometric parameters.

Clinical and economic evaluation of surgical treatments for faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence affects 1-2 per cent of the adult population. While many patients can be managed successfully with conservative therapy, a small proportion require surgery. Improved imaging techniques and technological advances have led to the availability of a wide range of surgical treatments. Decision-makers increasingly require clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of surgical treatments for faecal incontinence. This review examines the practical aspects of undertaking such studies.

METHODS

The practical issues related to different aetiologies, different types of treatment, defining outcomes, the hidden costs of the condition and its treatment, the rapid changes in technology and issues of patient choice were all considered. A Medline search was undertaken to identify relevant publications, and the reference lists of identified papers were scanned manually.

RESULTS

There are few randomized controlled studies and those that have been performed have been limited in their scope. There has also been very limited health economic analysis undertaken. Strategies for conducting such studies, and the criteria they use, have been outlined.

CONCLUSION

Randomized trials have a limited role in this setting because of variations in aetiology, difficulty in standardizing procedures, continuing evolution of devices, small patient numbers, concerns for patient choice and the need for long-term follow-up. Issues to be addressed when evaluating interventions for faecal incontinence include choosing appropriate measures of surgical outcome, using new continence scoring systems and tools for quality-of-life assessment, and choosing appropriate cost perspectives and time horizons for economic evaluation.

Anorectal nomenclature: fundamental terminology

There is lack of agreement on the definitions of the anal canal and its parts. To facilitate mutual understanding and communication between workers, it is highly desirable that a set of agreed-upon definitions be developed. The development of the different definitions and their purposes is followed and they are analyzed. As a basis for discussion, a possible revised entry for the next edition of Terminologia Anatomica is presented. Draft definitions of the terms in the entry are provided. Practitioners are invited to become involved in the process of developing agreement on definitions by providing comments and criticism.

Surgery for faecal incontinence in adults

BACKGROUND

Faecal incontinence is a debilitating problem with significant medical, social and economic implications. Treatment options include conservative, non-operative interventions (e.g. pelvic floor muscle training, biofeedback, drugs) and surgical procedures. Surgery is used in selected groupsof people when the structural and functional defects in the pelvic floor muscles or the anal sphincter complex can be corrected mechanically.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of established surgical techniques for the treatment of faecal incontinence in adults who do not have rectal prolapse. Our aims were firstly to compare surgical management with non-surgical management and secondly, to compare the various surgical techniques.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group trials register, the Cochrane Colorectal Cancer Group trials register, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 2, 1999), Medline (up to March 1999), Embase (1998 up to January 1999), Sigle (1980 up to December 1996), Biosis (1998 up to March 1999), SCI (1998 up to March 1999), ISTP (1982 up to March 1999) and the reference lists of relevant articles. We specifically hand searched the British Journal of Surgery from 1995 to 1998 and the Diseases of the Colon and Rectum from 1995 to 1998. We also perused the proceedings of the Association of Coloproctology, meeting 1999. Date of the most recent literature searches: March 1999.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised trials of surgery in the management of adult faecal incontinence (other then surgery for rectal prolapse).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected studies from the literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of eligible trials. The three primary outcome measures were: change or deterioration in incontinence, failure to achieve full continence, and the presence of faecal urgency.

MAIN RESULTS

Four trials were included with a total sample size of 110 participants. All trials excluded women with anal sphincter defects detected by endoanal ultrasound examination. No trial included a group managed non-surgically. Two trials (56 participants) compared three approaches to pelvic floor repair (anterior levatorplasty, postanal repair and their combination total pelvic floor repair). One trial (30 participants) evaluated adding plication of the anal sphincter to total pelvic floor repair. The fourth trial (24 participants) compared a neosphincter procedure with total pelvic floor repair. No differences in the primary outcomes were detected, but data were few and inconsistently reported.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The small number of relevant trials identified together with their small sample sizes and other methodological weaknesses severely limit the usefulness of this review for guiding practice. It was impossible to identify or refute clinically important differences between the alternative surgical procedures. Larger rigorous trials are needed.

Management of colorectal-anal dysfunction

Although the majority of patients with low-grade anal incontinence and constipation should be treated medically, for some, efforts will be unsuccessful and surgical therapy will be in order. Full thickness rectal prolapse will, in all early cases, be treated surgically. This article outlines the surgical treatment options for patients with anal incontinence, rectal prolapse, and constipation. Optimal functional outcomes with surgical treatment are based on full physiologic evaluation and careful patient selection.