Conservative treatment for anal incontinence

Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis in the Older Adult: a Review of Postoperative Outcomes and Pouchitis Treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has become the preferred surgical treatment for patients with medically refractive ulcerative colitis (UC). Previous studies have suggested that outcomes of this procedure may be worse in older patients; however, more recent reports have suggested that IPAA in select patients is safe, feasible, and results in good quality of life. In this review, we discuss the recent literature surrounding clinical considerations and treatment management of IPAA in older adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

IPAA complication rates and adverse events are similar in the older adult population, as compared to the younger adult patient population. Although fecal urgency and incontinence may be more common among older adults, chronological age alone is not a contraindication for IPAA surgery, as good quality of life can still be achieved. In this review, we will also discuss the development of pouchitis after IPAA, particularly among older adults, as the emergence of newer biologic drugs has shifted the treatment landscape.

SUMMARY

IPAA can be a safe and effective treatment modality for older adults with UC, with high self-reported patient satisfaction. Patient optimization and careful case selection are vital to achieving these outcomes, and specialized preoperative assessments and counseling can help facilitate the proper treatment.

Comparison of anal dilatation versus no dilatation with a standardized dilator in reducing pain after hemorrhoidectomy: a randomized control trial

Background

Post-operative pain is the main problem of hemorrhoidectomy. An adequate pain management can promote early mobilization, fast recovery, and reduce hospitalization costs. This study aimed to investigate the role of preoperative anal dilatation using a standardized anal dilator in reducing post-operative pain.

Method

This study was conducted using randomized prospective trial with a total of 40 subjects, who were divided into 2 groups. The first group received preoperative anal dilatation using a 33 mm anal dilator for 20 min, while the second group did not. The post-operative anal pain, edema, bleeding, and incontinence were observed in the first, second, and seventh day.

Result

The post-operative pain was significantly lower in the preoperative anal dilatation group for all days of observation (p < 0.05). The difference of post-operative bleeding and edema between groups were not significant. Fecal incontinence was initially significantly higher in the preoperative anal dilatation group, but the difference was insignificant at the seventh day (p = 0.500).

Conclusion

Preoperative anal dilatation significantly reduced post-operative pain. The side effect of fecal incontinence was only temporary until the seventh day after surgery.

Trial Registration This trial was registered on Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) with TCTR identification number TCTR20220314002, on 14/03/2022 (retrospectively registered).

Pain is a common complication in patients after undergoing hemorrhoidectomy.

This study found preoperative anal dilatation significantly reduced post-operative pain.

The Renew® anal insert for passive faecal incontinence: a retrospective audit of our use of a novel device

AIM

The Renew® anal insert is a recent treatment for patients who suffer from passive faecal incontinence (FI). Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of the insert and patients' satisfaction with it.

METHOD

A retrospective audit of patients who were treated with the Renew® anal insert was undertaken. The St Mark's Incontinence Score was used to evaluate clinical outcome. Renew® size, the number of inserts used per day and per week had also been recorded. Subjective assessment of symptoms, how beneficial Renew® was and how satisfied patients were with the device were all recorded. Major events and side effects were also noted.

RESULTS

Thirty patients received Renew® as a treatment for passive incontinence in 2016. The median St Mark's Incontinence Score was 15 (range 7-18) at baseline and 10 (range 2-18) at first follow-up (P < 0.0001) at a median of 11 (range 8-14) weeks. Eleven (37%) patients used the regular size and 19 (63%) the large size. Patients used an average of 1.67 inserts per day (range 1-3) on an average of 3.58 days per week (1-7). Three patients reported a deterioration in symptoms, seven (23%) had no change and 20 (67%) showed a significant improvement. Six patients (20%) did not like the device while 24 (80%) liked it. Seventeen patients (57%) wanted to continue this treatment in the long term.

CONCLUSION

The Renew® device seems to be an acceptable and effective therapeutic option for passive FI. Further work is needed to compare it with other treatments and establish its position in the treatment pathway.

Acceptability, effectiveness and safety of a Renew® anal insert in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis

INTRODUCTION

Restorative proctocolectomy has gained acceptance in the surgical management of medically refractive ulcerative colitis and cancer prevention in familial adenomatous polyposis. Incontinence following restorative proctocolectomy occurs in up to 25% of patients overnight. The Renew^® insert is an inert single-use device which acts as an anal plug. The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the Renew^® insert in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy. The device has yet to be assessed in patients who have undergone restorative proctocolectomy.

METHOD

This was a prospective study exploring the acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the Renew^® insert in improving incontinence in patients who had undergone restorative proctocolectomy. A total of 15 patients with incontinence were asked to use the Renew^® insert for 14 days following their standard care. The Incontinence Questionnaire-Bowels was used pre- and posttreatment to assess response and patients were asked to report the perceived acceptability, effectiveness and safety of the device at the end of the trial.

RESULTS

The device was acceptable to 8/15 (53%) of patients and was effective in 6/15 (40%). Only 2/15 (13%) of patients raised any safety concerns, and these were minor. The device was associated with a significant reduction in night seepage (P = 0.034).

CONCLUSION

In a small study, the Renew^® insert can be both acceptable and effective and is also associated with few safety concerns. It is also associated with significant reductions in night-time seepage.