The relationships between the results of contemporary tests of anorectal structure and sensorimotor function and the severity of fecal incontinence

The Clinical Impact of Obesity in Patients With Disorders of Defecation: A Cross-Sectional Study of 1,155 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Obesity is a global epidemic. Its clinical impact on symptoms of fecal incontinence (FI) and/or constipation and underlying anorectal pathophysiology remains uncertain.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of consecutive patients meeting Rome IV criteria for FI and/or functional constipation, with data on body mass index (BMI), attending a tertiary center for investigation between 2017 and 2021. Clinical history, symptoms, and anorectal physiologic test results were analyzed according to BMI categories.

RESULTS

A total of 1,155 patients (84% female) were included in the analysis (33.5% normal BMI; 34.8% overweight; and 31.7% obese). Obese patients had higher odds of FI to liquid stools (69.9 vs 47.8%, odds ratio [OR] 1.96 [confidence interval: 1.43-2.70]), use of containment products (54.6% vs 32.6%, OR 1.81 [1.31-2.51]), fecal urgency (74.6% vs 60.7%, OR 1.54 [1.11-2.14]), urge FI (63.4% vs 47.3%, OR 1.68 [1.23-2.29]), and vaginal digitation (18.0% vs 9.7%, OR 2.18 [1.26-3.86]). A higher proportion of obese patients had Rome criteria-based FI or coexistent FI and functional constipation (37.3%, 50.3%) compared with overweight patients (33.8%, 44.8%) and patients with normal BMI (28.9%, 41.1%). There was a positive linear association between BMI and anal resting pressure (β 0.45, R 2 0.25, P = 0.0003), although the odds of anal hypertension were not significantly higher after Benjamini-Hochberg correction. Obese patients more often had a large clinically significant rectocele (34.4% vs 20.6%, OR 2.62 [1.51-4.55]) compared with patients with normal BMI.

DISCUSSION

Obesity affects specific defecatory (mainly FI) and prolapse symptoms and pathophysiologic findings (higher anal resting pressure and significant rectocele). Prospective studies are required to determine whether obesity is a modifiable risk factor of FI and constipation.

Post-Operative Anorectal Manometry in Children following Anorectal Malformation Repair: A Systematic Review

Despite surgical correction, children with anorectal malformations may experience long-term bowel dysfunction, including fecal incontinence and/or disorders of evacuation. Anorectal manometry is the most widely used test of anorectal function. Although considerable attention has been devoted to its application in the anorectal malformation cohort, there have been few attempts to consolidate the findings obtained. This systematic review aimed to (1) synthesize and evaluate the existing data regarding anorectal manometry results in children following anorectal malformation repair, and (2) evaluate the manometry protocols utilized, including equipment, assessment approach, and interpretation. We reviewed four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and PubMed) for relevant articles published between 1 January 1985 and 10 March 2022. Studies reporting post-operative anorectal manometry in children (<18 years) following anorectal malformation repair were evaluated for eligibility. Sixty-three studies were eligible for inclusion. Of the combined total cohort of 2155 patients, anorectal manometry results were reported for 1755 children following repair of anorectal malformations. Reduced resting pressure was consistently identified in children with anorectal malformations, particularly in those with more complex malformation types and/or fecal incontinence. Significant variability was identified in relation to manometry equipment, protocols, and interpretation. Few studies provided adequate cohort medical characteristics to facilitate interpretation of anorectal manometry findings within the context of the broader continence mechanism. This review highlights a widespread lack of standardization in the anorectal manometry procedure used to assess anorectal function in children following anorectal malformation repair. Consequently, interpretation and comparison of findings, both within and between institutions, is exceedingly challenging, if not impossible. Standardized manometry protocols, accompanied by a consistent approach to analysis, including definitions of normality and abnormality, are essential to enhance the comparability and clinical relevance of results.