Sphincter training or anal injections of dextranomer for treatment of anal incontinence: a randomized trial

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.

Administration of an Anal Bulking Agent With Polyacrylate-Polyalcohol Copolymer Particles Versus Endoanal Electrical Stimulation With Biofeedback for the Management of Mild and Moderate Anal Incontinence: A Randomized Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

There are few treatment options for mild-to-moderate anal incontinence with isolated internal anal sphincter defects or anal incontinence without muscle damage. Less-invasive techniques are generally favored.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the results between the use of an anal bulking agent with polyacrylate-polyalcohol copolymer particles and endoanal electrical stimulation with biofeedback in patients with mild or moderate anal incontinence.

DESIGN

This was a prospective parallel-group, single-institution, randomized clinical trial.

SETTINGS

This study was conducted in an ambulatory setting at the Colorectal Physiology Service of the Hospital das Clinicas, Medical School, University of Sao Paulo.

PATIENTS

This study included patients who had anal incontinence for >6 months with isolated internal anal sphincter muscle damage or absence of anatomical defects in the anorectal sphincter complex.

INTERVENTIONS

Anal bulking agent and endoanal electrical stimulation with biofeedback.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score, and the secondary outcome measures included quality of life, recommended procedures, and anorectal manometry.

RESULTS

There were no significant between-group differences in mean age, sex, BMI, stool consistency, and Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score (p = 0.20) at baseline. After 12 months, the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score was found to be significantly improved in patients treated with the bulking agent compared to those treated with electrical stimulation (mean, 6.2 vs 9.2; p = 0.002), though the anorectal manometry parameters did not change significantly. The mean anal Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score declined by 4.2 points in the bulking agent group compared to a decline of 0.8 in the electrical stimulation group (mean difference in decline: 3.4 points; 95% CI, 1.2-5.5). Quality-of life evaluation showed similar results between groups comparing baseline parameters with 12-month follow-up.

LIMITATIONS

The short follow-up period of 1 year, atypical method of biofeedback, and unmatched baseline in some of the quality-of-life scales between the 2 groups limited this study.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with mild or moderate anal incontinence, the Cleveland Clinic Florida Fecal Incontinence Score significantly improved in the bulking agent with polyacrylate-polyalcohol copolymer group compared with the endoanal electrical stimulation with biofeedback group. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B938.

ADMINISTRACIN DE UN GEL ANAL CON PARTCULAS DE COPOLMERO DE POLIACRILATOPOLIALCOHOL VERSUS ESTIMULACIN ELCTRICA ENDOANAL CON EJERCICIOS ANALES BIOFEEDBACK PARA EL MANEJO DE LA INCONTINENCIA ANAL LEVE Y MODERADA UN ESTUDI PROSPECTIVO ALEATORIZADO

ANTECEDENTES:Hasta la fecha, existen pocas opciones de tratamiento para la incontinencia anal de leve a moderada con defectos aislados del esfínter anal interno o la incontinencia anal sin daño muscular. Por lo general, se prefieren técnicas menos invasivas.OBJETIVO:El objetivo fue comparar los resultados entre el uso de un gel intra-anal con partículas de copolímero de poliacrilato-polialcohol y la estimulación eléctrica endoanal con ejercicios anales en pacientes con incontinencia anal leve o moderada.DISEÑO:Este fue un ensayo clínico aleatorio prospectivo de grupos paralelos, de una institución, realizado en cuatro etapas: base, procedimientos, postratamiento temprano y tardío.AJUSTE:Este estudio se realizó en el ambulatorio de Fisiología Colorrectal del Servicio de Coloproctología del Hospital das Clínicas, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de São Paulo.PACIENTES:Paciente con incontinencia anal con más de 6 meses, con daño muscular aislado del esfínter anal interno o ausencia de defectos anatómicos en el esfínter anorrectal.INTERVENCIONES:Las intervenciones incluyeron la inyección del gel intra-anal y estimulación eléctrica endoanal con ejercicios anales.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Indice de incontinencia fecal (Cleveland Clinic Florida), Indice de calidad de vida, los procedimientos recomendados y la manometría anorrectal.RESULTADOS:No hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en cuanto a la edad media, el sexo, el índice de masa corporal, la consistencia de las heces y la puntuación de incontinencia fecal (p = 0,20) al inicio del estudio. Después de 12 meses, la puntuación de incontinencia fecal mejoró significativamente en los pacientes tratados con el el gel intra-anal (media = 6,2) en comparación con los tratados con estimulación eléctrica (media = 9,2; p = 0,002), aunque los parámetros de manometría anorrectal no mejoraron significativamente. La puntuación anal media de incontinencia fecal disminuyó 4,2 puntos en el grupo del Gel intra-anal en comparación con 0,8 en el grupo de estimulación eléctrica (diferencia media en la disminución: 3,4 puntos; IC del 95%: 1,2 a 5,5). La evaluación de la calidad de vida mostró resultados similares entre los grupos que compararon los parámetros iniciales con un seguimiento de 12 meses.LIMITACIONES:Breve período de seguimiento de un año, métodos diferentes de ejercicios anales y línea de base sin igual en algunas de las escalas de calidad de vida entre los dos grupos.CONCLUSIONES:En pacientes con incontinencia anal leve y moderada, la puntuación de incontinencia fecal mejoró significativamente en el grupo de gel intra-anal con copolímero de poliacrilato-polialcohol en comparación con la estimulación eléctrica endoanal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B938. (Traducción- Dr Leonardo Alfonso Bustamante-Lopez).

An evaluation of the long-term effectiveness of Gatekeeper™ intersphincteric implants for passive faecal incontinence

Background

Implantation of Gatekeeper™ prostheses presents an option for the treatment of passive faecal incontinence (FI). Whilst preliminary results are encouraging, long-term data regarding its sustained benefit are limited. The aim of this study was to assess and evaluate the long-term clinical function and quality of life of patients with passive faecal incontinence who were treated with Gatekeeper™ prostheses.

Methods

This was a single centre, single surgeon retrospective study of prospectively collected clinical data in patients with FI treated between June 2012 and May 2019. Patients with passive FI with symptoms refractory to conservative treatment and endoanal ultrasonography showing intact or disrupted internal anal sphincter were included. Formal clinical and quality of life assessments were carried out using the St. Mark’s Incontinence Score (SMIS) and Faecal Incontinence Quality of Life (FIQoL) questionnaires at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months and then annually. Endoanal ultrasonography was performed both before and after surgery.

Results

Forty patients (14 males, 26 females) with a median age of 62.5 (range 33–80) years were treated with the Gatekeeper™ implant. The majority of patients (87.5%) received six implants. There were no peri or post-operative complications. Prosthesis migration was observed in 12.5% patients. The median follow-up duration was 5 years (interquartile range (IQR) 3.25–6.00 years). A sustained improvement in median SMIS and FIQoL scores from baseline to follow-up was noted. Significant differences were observed between the median baseline SMIS score and last follow-up score of 16.00 (IQR 15.00–16.75) to 7.00 (IQR 5.00–8.00) respectively (p < 0.001), a 56.25% decrease. The overall median FIQoL score showed a significant improvement from 7.95 (IQR 7.13–9.48) to 13.15 (IQR 12.00–13.98) (p < 0.001) a 65.40% increase.

Conclusions

Gatekeeper™ implantation is a safe approach to treating passive FI and is minimally invasive, reproducible and has minimal complications. Long-term sustained clinical improvement is achievable beyond 5 years. Careful patient selection is paramount, as is consistency of technique and follow-up protocol.

Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of Faecal Incontinence-A UEG/ESCP/ESNM/ESPCG collaboration

INTRODUCTION

The goal of this project was to create an up-to-date joint European clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of faecal incontinence (FI), using the best available evidence. These guidelines are intended to help guide all medical professionals treating adult patients with FI (e.g., general practitioners, surgeons, gastroenterologists, other healthcare workers) and any patients who are interested in information regarding the diagnosis and management of FI.

METHODS

These guidelines have been created in cooperation with members from the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European Society of Neurogastroenterology and Motility (ESNM) and the European Society for Primary Care Gastroenterology (ESPCG). These members made up the guideline development group (GDG). Additionally, a patient advisory board (PAB) was created to reflect and comment on the draft guidelines from a patient perspective. Relevant review questions were established by the GDG along with a set of outcomes most important for decision making. A systematic literature search was performed using these review questions and outcomes as a framework. For each predefined review question, the study or studies with the highest level of study design were included. If evidence of a higher-level study design was available, no lower level of evidence was sought or included. Data from the studies were extracted by two reviewers for each predefined important outcome within each review question. Where possible, forest plots were created. After summarising the results for each review question, a systematic quality assessment using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach was performed. For each review question, we assessed the quality of evidence for every predetermined important outcome. After evidence review and quality assessment were completed, recommendations could be formulated. The wording used for each recommendation was dependent on the level of quality of evidence. Lower levels of evidence resulted in weaker recommendations and higher levels of evidence resulted in stronger recommendations. Recommendations were discussed within the GDG to reach consensus.

RESULTS

These guidelines contain 45 recommendations on the classification, diagnosis and management of FI in adult patients.

CONCLUSION

These multidisciplinary European guidelines provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence-based framework with recommendations on the diagnosis and management of adult patients who suffer from FI.

Fecal Incontinence: Pathogenesis, Diagnosis, and Updated Treatment Strategies

Fecal incontinence (FI) is defined as the involuntary loss or passage of solid or liquid stool in patients. FI is a common and debilitating condition in men and women. The incidence increases with age and also often goes unreported to health care providers. It is crucial that providers ask at-risk patients about possible symptoms. Evaluation and management is tailored to specific symptoms and characteristics of the incontinence. If conservative methods fail to improve symptoms, then other surgical options are considered, such as sacral nerve stimulation and anal sphincter augmentation. This review provides an update on current and future therapies.

Comparative effectiveness of biofeedback and injectable bulking agents for treatment of fecal incontinence: Design and methods

Fecal incontinence (FI), the involuntary passage of stool, is common and can markedly impair the quality of life. Among patients who fail initial options (pads or protective devices, bowel modifying agents, and pelvic floor exercises), the options are pelvic floor biofeedback (BIO), perianal injection with bulking agents (INJ), and sacral nerve electrical stimulation (SNS), which have not been subjected to head-to-head comparisons. This study will compare the safety and efficacy of BIO and INJ for managing FI. The impact of these approaches on quality-of-life and psychological distress, cost effectiveness, and predictors of response to therapy will also be evaluated. Six centers in the United States will enroll approximately 285 patients with moderate to severe FI. Patients who have 4 or more FI episodes over 2 weeks proceed to a 4-week trial of enhanced medical management (EMM) (ie, education, bowel management, and pelvic floor exercises). Thereafter, 194 non-responders as defined by a less than 75% reduction in the frequency of FI will be randomized to BIO or INJ. Three months later, the efficacy, safety, and cost of therapy will be assessed; non-responders will be invited to choose to add the other treatment or SNS for the remainder of the study. Early EMM responders will be re-evaluated 3 months later and non-responders randomized to BIO or INJ. Standardized, and where appropriate validated approaches will be used for study procedures, which will be performed by trained personnel. Prospectively collected data on care costs and resource utilization will be used for cost effectiveness analyses.

Tools for fecal incontinence assessment: lessons for inflammatory bowel disease trials based on a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Fecal incontinence is a disabling condition affecting up to 20% of women.

OBJECTIVE

We investigated fecal incontinence assessment in both inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients to propose a diagnostic approach for inflammatory bowel disease trials.

METHODS

We searched on Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library for all studies on adult inflammatory bowel disease and non-inflammatory bowel disease patients reporting data on fecal incontinence assessment from January 2009 to December 2019.

RESULTS

In total, 328 studies were included; 306 studies enrolled non-inflammatory bowel disease patients and 22 studies enrolled inflammatory bowel disease patients. In non-inflammatory bowel disease trials the most used tools were the Wexner score, fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire, Vaizey score and fecal incontinence severity index (in 187, 91, 62 and 33 studies). Anal manometry was adopted in 41.2% and endoanal ultrasonography in 34.0% of the studies. In 142 studies (46.4%) fecal incontinence evaluation was performed with a single instrument, while in 64 (20.9%) and 100 (32.7%) studies two or more instruments were used. In inflammatory bowel disease studies the Wexner score, Vaizey score and inflammatory bowel disease quality of life questionnaire were the most commonly adopted tools (in five (22.7%), five (22.7%) and four (18.2%) studies). Anal manometry and endoanal ultrasonography were performed in 45.4% and 18.2% of the studies.

CONCLUSION

Based on prior validation and experience, we propose to use the Wexner score as the first step for fecal incontinence assessment in inflammatory bowel disease trials. Anal manometry and/or endoanal ultrasonography should be taken into account in the case of positive questionnaires.

Constipation and Fecal Incontinence in the Elderly

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the epidemiology, pathogenesis, clinical features, and management of primary constipation and fecal incontinence in the elderly.

RECENT FINDINGS

Among elderly people, 6.5%, 1.7%, and 1.1% have functional constipation, constipation-predominant IBS, and opioid-induced constipation. In elderly people, the number of colonic enteric neurons and smooth muscle functions is preserved; decreased cholinergic function with unopposed nitrergic relaxation may explain colonic motor dysfunction. Less physical activity or dietary fiber intake and postmenopausal hormonal therapy are risk factors for fecal incontinence in elderly people. Two thirds of patients with fecal incontinence respond to biofeedback therapy. Used in combination, loperamide and biofeedback therapy are more effective than placebo, education, and biofeedback therapy. Vaginal or anal insert devices are another option. In the elderly, constipation and fecal incontinence are common and often distressing symptoms that can often be managed by addressing bowel disturbances. Selected diagnostic tests, prescription medications, and, infrequently, surgical options should be considered when necessary.

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 210: Fecal Incontinence

Fecal incontinence, or the involuntary leakage of solid or loose stool, is estimated to affect 7-15% of community-dwelling women (1). It is associated with reduced quality of life, negative psychologic effects, and social stigma (2), yet many women do not report their symptoms or seek treatment. Less than 3% of women who do self-report fecal incontinence will have this diagnosis recorded in their medical record (3). Obstetrician-gynecologists are in a unique position to identify women with fecal incontinence because pregnancy, childbirth, obstetric anal sphincter injuries (OASIS), and pelvic floor dysfunction are important risk factors that contribute to fecal incontinence in women. The purpose of this Practice Bulletin is to provide evidence-based guidelines on the screening, evaluation, and management of fecal incontinence to help obstetrician-gynecologists diagnose the condition and provide conservative treatment or referral for further work up and surgical management when appropriate. For discussion on fecal incontinence associated with OASIS, see Practice Bulletin No. 198, Prevention and Management of Obstetric Lacerations at Vaginal Delivery (4).

Recent advances in managing fecal incontinence

Fecal incontinence (FI) is the uncontrolled passage of feces or gas in an individual who previously had control. The prevalence of the problem varies but can be as high as 50% of institutionalized individuals. The severity varies among individuals, but the negative impact on self-esteem and quality of life can have devastating effects. The goals of treatment are to decrease the frequency and severity of episodes as well as to improve quality of life. At present, several therapies, ranging from medical management to more invasive surgical interventions, are offered for the management of FI. In this article, we review the most recent advances in the management of FI.

A Practical Guide to Biofeedback Therapy for Pelvic Floor Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Biofeedback therapy (BFT) is effective for managing pelvic floor disorders (i.e., defecatory disorders and fecal incontinence). However, even in controlled clinical trials, only approximately 60% of patients with defecatory disorders experienced long-term improvement. The review serves to update practitioners on recent advances and to identify practical obstacles to providing biofeedback therapy.

RECENT FINDINGS

The efficacy and safety of biofeedback therapy have been evaluated in defecatory disorders, fecal incontinence, and levator ani syndrome. Recent studies looked at outcomes in specific patient sub-populations and predictors of a response to biofeedback therapy. Biofeedback therapy is effective for managing defecatory disorders, fecal incontinence, and levator ani syndrome. Patients who have a lower bowel satisfaction score and use digital maneuvers fare better. Biofeedback therapy is recommended for patients with fecal incontinence who do not respond to conservative management. A subset of patients with levator ani syndrome who have dyssynergic defecation are more likely to respond to biofeedback therapy.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing treatments for faecal incontinence

BACKGROUND

Although numerous treatments exist for fecal incontinence (FI), no consensus exists on the best treatment strategy. The aim was to review the literature and to compare the clinical outcomes and effectiveness of treatments available for FI.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

A systematic literature review was performed, from inception to May 2018, of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Cochrane Library. The search terms used were "faecal incontinence" and "treatment". Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing treatments for FI were considered. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed using the Markov chain Monte Carlo method.

RESULT

Forty-seven RCTs were included comparing 37 treatments and reporting on 3748 participants. No treatment ranked best or worst with high probability for any outcome of interest. No significant difference was identified between treatments for frequency of FI per week, or in changing the resting pressure, maximum resting pressure, squeeze pressure, and maximum squeeze pressure. Radiofrequency resulted in more adverse events compared to placebo. Sacral nerve stimulation (SNS) and zinc-aluminium improved the fecal incontinence quality of life questionnaire (FIQL) lifestyle, coping, and embarrassment domains compared to placebo. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (TPTNS) improved the FIQL embarrassment domain compared to placebo. Autologous myoblasts and zinc-aluminium improved the FIQL depression domain compared to placebo. SNS, artificial bowel sphincter (ABS), and zinc-aluminium significantly improved incontinence scores compared to placebo. Injection of non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid/dextranomer (NASHA/Dx) resulted in more patients with ≥50% reduction in FI episodes compared to placebo.

CONCLUSION

SNS, ABS, TPTNS, NASHA/Dx, zinc-aluminium, and autologous myoblasts resulted in isolated improvements in specific outcomes of interest. No difference was identified in incontinence episodes, no treatment ranked best persistently or persistently improved outcomes, and many included treatments did not significantly benefit patients compared to placebo. Large multicentre RCTs with long-term follow-up and standardized inclusion criteria and outcome measures are needed.

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.

Autologous Myoblasts for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence: Results of a Phase 2 Randomized Placebo-controlled Study (MIAS)

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intrasphincteric injections of autologous myoblasts (AMs) in fecal incontinence (FI) in a controlled study.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Adult stem cell therapy is expected to definitively cure FI by regenerating damaged sphincter. Preclinical data and results of open-label trials suggest that myoblast therapy may represent a noninvasive treatment option.

METHODS

We conducted a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of intrasphincteric injections of AM in 24 patients. The study compared outcome after AM (n = 12) or placebo (n = 12) injection using Cleveland Clinic Incontinence (CCI), score at 6 and 12 months. Patients in the placebo group were eligible to receive frozen AM after 1 year.

RESULTS

At 6 months, the median CCI score significantly decreased from baseline in both the AM (9 vs 15, P = 0.02) and placebo (10 vs 15, P = 0.01) groups. Hence, no significant difference was found between the 2 groups (primary endpoint) at 6 months. At 12 months, the median CCI score continued to ameliorate in the AM group (6.5 vs 15, P = 0.006), while effect was lost in the placebo group (14 vs 15, P = 0.35). Consequently, there was a higher response rate at 12 months in the treated than the placebo arm (58% vs 8%, P = 0.03). After delayed frozen AM injection in the placebo group, the response rate was 60% (6/10) at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrasphincteric AM injections in FI patients have shown tolerance, safety, and clinical benefit at 12 months despite a transient placebo effect at 6 months.

Diagnosis and Management of Fecal Incontinence

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of this review is to highlight current and newer therapeutic approaches to treat fecal incontinence in patients who do not respond to conservative measures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Neurostimulation techniques, injection of bulking agents, and radiofrequency energy delivery to the anal canal have been proposed and tested for fecal incontinence over the last decade. Sacral stimulation is both effective and durable and is now the most popular of the invasive techniques whereas percutaneous tibial stimulation, radiofrequency energy, and bulking agents are either less effective or their evaluation has been handicapped by suboptimal study designs. The precise indications for the new vaginal control device and anal plugs remain to be established. The magnetic anal sphincter is disappointing. Stem cell therapy is a potentially exciting approach, which is in its infancy. There continues to be an unmet need for innovative approaches to patients with fecal incontinence who do not respond to conservative measures. The efficacy of current and future therapies should be assessed using criteria more stringent than has been used in the past to provide a more realistic assessment of meaningful efficacy.

Surgical Interventions and the Use of Device-Aided Therapy for the Treatment of Fecal Incontinence and Defecatory Disorders

The purpose of this clinical practice update expert review is to describe the key principles in the use of surgical interventions and device-aided therapy for managing fecal incontinence (FI) and defecatory disorders. The best practices outlined in this review are based on relevant publications, including systematic reviews and expert opinion (when applicable). Best Practice Advice 1: A stepwise approach should be followed for management of FI. Conservative therapies (diet, fluids, techniques to improve evacuation, a bowel training program, management of diarrhea and constipation with diet and medications if necessary) will benefit approximately 25% of patients and should be tried first. Best Practice Advice 2: Pelvic floor retraining with biofeedback therapy is recommended for patients with FI who do not respond to the conservative measures indicated above. Best Practice Advice 3: Perianal bulking agents such as intra-anal injection of dextranomer may be considered when conservative measures and biofeedback therapy fail. Best Practice Advice 4: Sacral nerve stimulation should be considered for patients with moderate or severe FI in whom symptoms have not responded after a 3-month or longer trial of conservative measures and biofeedback therapy and who do not have contraindications to these procedures. Best Practice Advice 5: Until further evidence is available, percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation should not be used for managing FI in clinical practice. Best Practice Advice 6: Barrier devices should be offered to patients who have failed conservative or surgical therapy, or in those who have failed conservative therapy who do not want or are not eligible for more invasive interventions. Best Practice Advice 7: Anal sphincter repair (sphincteroplasty) should be considered in postpartum women with FI and in patients with recent sphincter injuries. In patients who present later with symptoms of FI unresponsive to conservative and biofeedback therapy and evidence of sphincter damage, sphincteroplasty may be considered when perianal bulking injection and sacral nerve stimulation are not available or have proven unsuccessful. Best Practice Advice 8: The artificial anal sphincter, dynamic graciloplasty, may be considered for patients with medically refractory severe FI who have failed treatment or are not candidates for barrier devices, sacral nerve stimulation, perianal bulking injection, sphincteroplasty and a colostomy. Best Practice Advice 9: Major anatomic defects (eg, rectovaginal fistula, full-thickness rectal prolapse, fistula in ano, or cloaca-like deformity) should be rectified with surgery. Best Practice Advice 10: A colostomy should be considered in patients with severe FI who have failed conservative treatment and have failed or are not candidates for barrier devices, minimally invasive surgical interventions, and sphincteroplasty. Best Practice Advice 11: A magnetic anal sphincter device may be considered for patients with medically refractory severe FI who have failed or are not candidates for barrier devices, perianal bulking injection, sacral nerve stimulation, sphincteroplasty, or a colostomy. Data regarding efficacy are limited and 40% of patients had moderate or severe complications. Best Practice Advice 12: For defecatory disorders, biofeedback therapy is the treatment of choice. Best Practice Advice 13: Based on limited evidence, sacral nerve stimulation should not be used for managing defecatory disorders in clinical practice. Best Practice Advice 14: Anterograde colonic enemas are not effective in the long term for management of defecatory disorders. Best Practice Advice 15: The stapled transanal rectal resection and related procedures should not be routinely performed for correction of structural abnormalities in patients with defecatory disorders.

Sacral neuromodulation compared with injection of bulking agents for faecal incontinence following obstetric anal sphincter injury - a randomized controlled trial

AIM

The purpose of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of sacral neuromodulation (SNM) with a submucosal injection of collagen (Permacol®) in women with faecal incontinence following obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASIS).

METHOD

This single-blinded randomized controlled trial at two hospital units in Norway included women with faecal incontinence following OASIS. Eligible women who had had a successful percutaneous nerve evaluation were randomly assigned to SNM or Permacol®. The primary outcome was the difference in the St Mark's incontinence score between baseline and 6 months. Secondary outcomes were changes in the disease-specific quality of life (FIQL) and urinary incontinence (ICIQ-UI-SF) scores.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight women were randomly assigned to SNM (n = 30) and Permacol® (n = 28). The reduction in the St Mark's score between baseline and 6 months was 11.2 (SD 5.3) in the SNM group vs 2.3 (SD 5.0) in the Permacol® group, resulting in a difference of 8.9 (95% CI: 6.1-11.7, P < 0.0001). The differences in the four scales of FIQL (lifestyle, coping, depression, embarrassment) were 0.90 (95% CI: 0.50-1.30, P < 0.001), 1.05 (0.62-1.47, P < 0.001), 0.52 (95% CI: 0.16-0.87, P = 0.005) and 0.95 (95% CI: 0.50-1.40, P < 0.001), respectively, in favour of SNM. The difference in the ICIQ-UI-SF was 5.0 (95% CI: 1.97-8.02, P = 0.002) in favour of SNM. There were nine minor adverse events in the SNM group compared with seven in the Permacol® group (P = 0.77).

CONCLUSION

SNM was superior to Permacol® in terms of reduction of St Mark's score, ICIQ-UI-SF and the change of the FIQL in women with faecal incontinence following OASIS.

Patient preferences for endpoints in fecal incontinence treatment studies

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials of treatments for fecal incontinence (FI) are difficult to compare because case definitions and study endpoints vary. Our aims were to assess patient perspectives on the case definition for FI and how treatment success should be measured.

METHODS

In Phase 1, 28 FI patients participated in anonymous on-line focus groups, and in Phase 2, 186 people with FI, stratified by gender, race, and age completed an online survey.

KEY RESULTS

Focus group participants described frequency and urgency as the most important characteristics for defining FI. Most (80%) thought staining of underwear constitutes FI, but only 33% thought gas leakage was FI. When asked how the success of treatment should be defined, 77% said by a reduction in frequency or complete cure, but less than half thought a 50% reduction in frequency was enough. When asked how much reduction would be needed, responses averaged 80%. The Phase 2 survey confirmed that frequency, urgency, and intestinal discomfort are the most important characteristics for case definition, and that success should be defined by at least a 75% decrease in frequency. A 50% reduction was an acceptable endpoint for 58% overall but only 26% for those aged ≥65. "Adequate relief" was acceptable to 78%.

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Inclusion criteria for trials should specify a minimum frequency of FI. Most patients would require a ≥75% reduction in FI frequency to call a treatment successful but young adults and those with more severe FI would accept a ≥50% reduction as meaningful.

Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Options for Fecal Incontinence

Fecal incontinence (FI), defined as the involuntary loss of solid or liquid feces through the anus is a prevalent condition with significant effects on quality of life. FI can affect individuals of all ages and in many cases greatly impairs quality of life but, incontinent patients should not accept their debility as either inevitable or untreatable. The severity of incontinence can range from unintentional elimination of flatus to the complete evacuation of bowel contents. It is reported to affect up to 18% of the population, with a prevalence reaching as high as 50% in nursing home residents. However, FI is often underreported, thus obscuring its true prevalence in the general population. The options for treatment vary according to the degree and severity of the FI. Treatment can include dietary and lifestyle modification, certain medications, biofeedback therapy, bulking agent injections, sacral nerve stimulation as well as various types of surgery. In this article, we aim to provide a comprehensive review on the diagnosis and management of FI.

Midterm outcomes of injectable bulking agents for fecal incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various bulking agents have been used to treat fecal incontinence. While short-term outcomes are attractive, there is still a lack of long-term data. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the midterm outcomes of treatment with injectable bulking agents and to identify predictive factors for improvement in incontinence.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the terms injection, bulking agents, and fecal incontinence. Studies with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. The improvement rate in incontinence was calculated by percent change in validated fecal incontinence score (FIS) following injection treatment. To explore the impact of predictive factors on improvement in incontinence, univariate meta-regressions were conducted using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

A total of 889 patients in 23 articles were included. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 23.7 months (95% CI 19.3-28.2). Eleven different bulking agents were used. Four validated FISs were used. The Cleveland Clinic Fecal Incontinence score (CC-FIS) was used in 19 studies. Most studies reported a statistically significant improvement in FIS. The pooled mean preoperative CC-FIS (n = 637) was 12.4 (95% CI 11.4-13.3). The pooled mean CC-FIS at last follow-up (n = 590) was 7.7 (95% CI 6.1-9.3). The weighted mean difference in CC-FIS between preoperative visit and last follow-up was 4.9 (95% CI 4.0-5.8). Hence, the rate of improvement in incontinence was 39.5% based on CC-FIS. Meta-regression revealed that the perianal injection route and implants intact on endoanal ultrasonography were predictive of greater improvement in incontinence. The manometric data revealed that the initial increase in the mean resting pressure following injection was attenuated over time. The pooled rate of adverse events was 18.0% (95% CI 10.0-30.1). In most cases, adverse events were minor and resolved within a couple of weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of injectable bulking agents results in significant midterm improvement in FIS. Perianal injection route and implants intact on EAUS were predictive of higher improvement in incontinence. However, given the paucity of randomized controlled trials in the literature, further research is needed to improve the quality of the evidence.

Endpoints for therapeutic interventions in faecal incontinence: small step or game changer

Faecal incontinence (FI) is common and its pathophysiology and treatments continue to evolve. However, a standard measure(s) for assessing its clinical outcome has been elusive. Consequently, over 100 measures and scoring systems, each with intrinsic biases have been reported. These include adequate relief or global satisfaction, ≥50% reduction in episodes or days without FI, quality of life (QOL), FI severity scales and composite indices. Earlier scales relied on the frequency and type of solid, liquid or flatus incontinence and effects on life style whereas newer scales have incorporated urgency, use of pads, antidiarrhoeals and amount of leakage, using prospective daily stool diaries or retrospective weekly or single point assessments. Such a plethora of measures have negatively impacted the assessment and outcome of clinical trials, and have made comparisons difficult. So, how does one sort out the grain from the chaff? In a provocative, post-hoc analysis published in this issue, the minimal clinically important difference, i.e. the smallest change detected by an instrument that is associated with a clinically meaningful change was used to assess FI endpoint. Based on this a ≥50% reduction in FI episodes is recommended as a clinically meaningful outcome measure when assessed by prospective stool diary, and it correlates with symptoms and severity. However, this requires further validation in multi-centre, longer duration and therapeutically effective clinical trial(s). Simultaneous assessment of coping strategies, QOL and psychosocial domains can provide further insights regarding the overall impact of treatments. This mini-review discusses the advances and controversies in defining meaningful FI endpoints.

Identifying factors associated with clinical success in patients treated with NASHA(®)/Dx injection for fecal incontinence

Purpose

Injection with the bulking agent consisting of non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid/dextranomer (NASHA^®/Dx) is well tolerated and efficacious for the treatment of fecal incontinence (FI); however, the patient population that may derive maximum benefit has not been established. This post hoc responder analysis assessed demographic and baseline characteristics predictive of responsiveness to NASHA/Dx treatment.

Methods

Adults with a Cleveland Clinic Florida fecal incontinence score (CCFIS) ≥10 were randomized to receive NASHA/Dx or sham treatment. The primary end point was response to treatment (ie, decrease from baseline of ≥50% in number of FI episodes) at 6 months; a prespecified secondary end point was change in fecal incontinence quality of life (FIQL) score at 6 months. Post hoc subgroup analyses were performed for baseline and demographic characteristics and prior FI treatments.

Results

Overall, response to treatment was significantly greater with NASHA/Dx versus sham injection (52.7% vs 32.1%; P=0.0089). All subgroups analyzed demonstrated evidence of improvement, favoring NASHA/Dx versus sham treatment for both response to treatment and change in the FIQL coping/behavior subscale score. For the primary end point, a significantly greater percentage of patients with CCFIS ≤15, FI symptoms ≤5 years’ duration, or obstetric causes of FI responded to NASHA/Dx treatment versus patients receiving sham treatment (51.1% vs 28.3%, P=0.0169; 55.4% vs 25.7%, P=0.0026; and 53.6% vs 23.1%, P=0.0191, respectively). The mean change in the FIQL coping/behavior score significantly favored NASHA/Dx versus sham treatment for patients with CCFIS ≤15 (P=0.0371), FI symptoms ≤5 years’ duration (P=0.0289), or obstetric causes of FI (P=0.0384). Patients without a history of specific FI treatments (eg, antidiarrheal medications, biofeedback, surgery) were more likely to respond to NASHA/Dx versus sham treatment for both end points.

Conclusion

Although all subgroups analyzed showed evidence of quantitative and qualitative benefit from NASHA/Dx therapy, patients with characteristics indicative of mild-to-moderate FI may exhibit the greatest benefit.

New treatments for fecal incontinence: update for the gastroenterologist

Fecal incontinence is one of the most emotionally devastating of all nonfatal conditions. Many patients do not respond satisfactorily to conservative measures, and there is a need for new and effective strategies when medical therapy fails. The development of sacral nerve stimulation and other forms of neuromodulation and the injection of biologically compatible substances into the anal sphincter complex have brought renewed enthusiasm for using these novel treatments in this underserved population. Because injectable bulking agents such as dextranomer in stabilized hyaluronic acid can be administered in an outpatient setting, this procedure is being marketed to both gastroenterologists and surgeons. This article reviews both sacral nerve stimulation and dextranomer bulking agents and compares their strengths and potential limitations in patients with fecal incontinence.

Management of pelvic floor disorders: biofeedback and more

OPINION STATEMENT

Defecatory disorders (DD) and fecal incontinence (FI) are common conditions. DD are primarily attributable to impaired rectoanal function during defecation or structural defects. FI is caused by one or more disturbances of anorectal continence mechanisms. Altered stool consistency may be the primary cause or may unmask anorectal deficits in both conditions. Diagnosis and management requires a systematic approach beginning with a thorough clinical assessment. Symptoms do not reliably differentiate a DD from other causes of constipation such as slow or normal transit constipation. Therefore, all constipated patients who do not adequately respond to medical therapy should be considered for anorectal testing to identify a DD. Preferably, two tests indicating impaired defecation are required to diagnose a DD. Patients with DD, or those for whom testing is not available and the clinical suspicion is high, should be referred for biofeedback-based pelvic floor physical therapy. Patients with FI should be managed with lifestyle modifications, pharmacotherapy for bowel disturbances, and management of local anorectal problems (e.g., hemorrhoids). When these measures are not beneficial, anorectal testing and pelvic floor retraining with biofeedback therapy should be considered. Sacral nerve stimulation or perianal bulking could be considered in patients who have persistent symptoms despite optimal management of bowel disturbances and pelvic floor retraining.

Current and emerging treatment options for fecal incontinence

Fecal incontinence (FI) is a multifactorial disorder that imposes considerable social and economic burdens. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of current and emerging treatment options for FI. A MEDLINE search was conducted for English-language articles related to FI prevalence, etiology, diagnosis, and treatment published from January 1, 1990 through June 1, 2013. The search was extended to unpublished trials on ClinicalTrials.gov and relevant publications cited in included articles. Conservative approaches, including dietary modifications, medications, muscle-strengthening exercises, and biofeedback, have been shown to provide short-term benefits. Transcutaneous electrical stimulation was considered ineffective in a randomized clinical trial. Unlike initial studies, sacral nerve stimulation has shown reasonable short-term effectiveness and some complications. Dynamic graciloplasty and artificial sphincter and bowel devices lack randomized controlled trials and have shown inconsistent results and high rates of explantation. Of injectable bulking agents, dextranomer microspheres in non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid (NASHA Dx) has shown significant improvement in incontinence scores and frequency of incontinence episodes, with generally mild adverse effects. For the treatment of FI, conservative measures and biofeedback therapy are modestly effective. When conservative therapies are ineffective, invasive procedures, including sacral nerve stimulation, may be considered, but they are associated with complications and lack randomized, controlled trials. Bulking agents may be an appropriate alternative therapy to consider before more aggressive therapies in patients who fail conservative therapies.

An update on anorectal disorders for gastroenterologists

Gastroenterologists frequently encounter pelvic floor disorders, which affect 10% to 15% of the population. The anorectum is a complex organ that collaborates with the pelvic floor muscles to preserve fecal continence and enable defecation. A careful clinical assessment is critical for the diagnosis and management of defecatory disorders and fecal incontinence. Newer diagnostic tools (eg, high-resolution manometry and magnetic resonance defecography) provide a refined understanding of anorectal dysfunctions and identify phenotypes in defecatory disorders and fecal incontinence. Conservative approaches, including biofeedback therapy, are the mainstay for managing these disorders; new minimally invasive approaches may benefit a subset of patients with fecal incontinence, but more controlled studies are needed. This mini-review highlights advances, current concepts, and controversies in the area.

Current management of fecal incontinence: Choosing amongst treatment options to optimize outcomes

The severity of fecal incontinence widely varies and can have dramatic devastating impacts on a person’s life. Fecal incontinence is common, though it is often under-reported by patients. In addition to standard treatment options, new treatments have been developed during the past decade to attempt to effectively treat fecal incontinence with minimal morbidity. Non-operative treatments include dietary modifications, medications, and biofeedback therapy. Currently used surgical treatments include repair (sphincteroplasty), stimulation (sacral nerve stimulation or posterior tibial nerve stimulation), replacement (artificial bowel sphincter or muscle transposition) and diversion (stoma formation). Newer augmentation treatments such as radiofrequency energy delivery and injectable materials, are minimally invasive tools that may be good options before proceeding to surgery in some patients with mild fecal incontinence. In general, more invasive surgical treatments are now reserved for moderate to severe fecal incontinence. Functional and quality of life related outcomes, as well as potential complications of the treatment must be considered and the treatment of fecal incontinence must be individualized to the patient. General indications, techniques, and outcomes profiles for the various treatments of fecal incontinence are discussed in detail. Choosing the most effective treatment for the individual patient is essential to achieve optimal outcomes in the treatment of fecal incontinence.

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.